Bubba's film reviews

2009 so far

2009-08-15T11:43:00.000-07:00

As the summer movie season winds down (although some anticipated films remain this month, mainly Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds, Miyazaki's Ponyo and Chan Wook Park's Thist) and the more serious fall season begins, I figured it was time to look back at the year in film so far. This will also sort of make up for how lazy I've been with this thing all summer. I haven't seen as many films as I would have liked so far this year (somewhere around 25), and I still haven't gotten to many highly regarded releases, including Tetro and The Hurt Locker, but here's what I have seen.
Top 10 (yes, some of these, including the top two, are technically 2008 releases, but they weren't released anywhere near me until 2009 and I don't really care about that sort of thing
1. Hunger
A masterpiece where every motion is absolutely necessary and every little tic says something new about the characters and their situation. The long conversation in the middle is a stunning centerpiece and acts as the highlight of Michael Fassbender's masterful performance, but Steve McQueen's stunning debut has no weak moments.
2. Revanche
Gotz Spielmann's immaculately shot noirish drama features great performances from it's entire cast as the tension continues to rise until the properly ambiguous ending.
3. In The Loop
Simply put, this is the funniest film of the year and one of the funniest of the decade.
4. Tokyo
I think somewhat higher of this one now than I did at first, especially the section directed by Leos Carax. It seems funnier and more poignant having actually seen one of his features (the great Lovers On The Bridge). The other segments are also very strong.
5. 500 Days Of Summer
I normally hate romantic comedies and I have it this high. That should mean something to you.
6. The Limits Of Control
Jim Jarmusch's stunningly beautiful (courtesy of the great cinematographer Christopher Doyle), critically misunderstood film may go down as one of his finest.
7. Star Trek
Sure the plot is nonsense and the villain is weak, but I don't think I've had more fun at a movie this year
8. Watchmen (Directors Cut Only)
The theatrical cut of the film wasn't necessarily bad, but the characters really weren't as developed as they could have been and the editing seemed off. The director's cut, which adds 24 minutes of footage, almost entirely in early character moments, fixes a lot of this. Malin Akerman and Mathew Goode are still pretty bad, the music choices are still laughable and Snyder still can't create a good action sequences, but more of the comic is here, and that is necessary.
9. Moon
Duncan Jones' debut may try a bit too hard to emulate 2001 and Solaris, but this leads to some great visuals and a morally interesting tale anchored by Sam Rockwell's great performance.
10. District 9
The sudden and unexplained shift away from the documentary style of the first half is a problem, as the second half becomes more of a simple action movie (I understand that it was necessary for plot reasons, but if the first half was written that way, they should have kept it going), but it is a damn good action movie, so for now it makes the list.
HM: Adventureland, Brothers Bloom, Up, Bruno, Sin Nombre

Bottom 5
5. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
While it is not the worst film in the series, David Yates' second entry takes one of the better books and turns it into something that is, ultimately, too dull to work on its own.
4. Taken
I know that this sleeper hit isn't exactly the type of film designed for me, but I find it somewhat depressing that this type of film is designed for anyone.
3. Public Enemies
I have to give Mann credit for trying something different, but I just don't think it succeeds. The script tries too hard to both romanticize and humanize Dillinger, never giving us anything resembling a full character. Like Heat, he tries to create a full criminal world, but, for one reason or another, it just doesn't work this time (the lack of De Niro and Pacino in the main roles of course being one of those reasons). The photo-realist, docudrama style also prevents it from reaching the stylistic level of his best film shot in digital, Collateral.
2. Angels and Demons
I don't like Ron Howard. I don't like Dan Brown. If I had paid for this one (the projector in the movie I meant to see was broken, so we got free tickets to this one), I would have been even angrier.
1. Wolverine
My original opinion still stands. This film is completely worthless. It provides nothing new about the character except a series of shockingly dull action set pieces.
There were a lot of simply mediocre films I've seen this year, but none that really deserved to be here

Pitchfork Fest

2009-07-20T09:58:00.000-07:00

At the very beginning, I promised that I would occasionally do a music review in here. Nine months later, I guess it's time for the first one. This weekend I attended Pitchfork Music Festival in Chicago, which, through a laid-back atmosphere, cheap tickets and consistently solid lineups has evolved into a hip alternative to Lollapalooza. Pitchfork will never be able to afford headliners like Lolla 2008 (Radiohead, Wilco, Rage, Kanye and Nine Inch Nails), but when the headliners for both festivals were announced this year, it became pretty clear which one I'd be attending. I honestly wouldn't pay a cent to see Lollapalooza's pathetic lineup of Depeche Mode, Tool, The Killers, Jane's Addiction, Beastie Boys and Jane's Addiction. There are some great below-the-line artists (Animal Collective, Lou Reed, Andrew Bird, Fleet Foxes, Portugal. The Man, etc), but a 3-day pass to Lolla is over $200, while three days at Pitchfork was $75, the price of a one-day ticket at Lollapalooza, and with Built to Spill, The National and The Flaming lips as headliners, I knew I would get my money's worth.
On Friday night, the festival eschewed the recent tradition of the artists playing their defining album (in recent years, the festival was treated to full versions of Sonic Youth's Daydream Nation, Public Enemy's It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back and Mission of Burma's Vs.), in favor the band's playing set-lists chosen by fan vote. The night opened with Chicago post-rock legends Tortoise, who displayed all the proficiency found in their studio work, but lacked the emotion and energy to make it a truly memorable show. Also, people kept tossing around Beach Balls, which seemed kind of idiotic during an experimental post-rock show. Next came Yo La Tengo, a band I've never really liked. Thankfully, after the first couple songs, me and the friend I was with ran into another friend who had just returned from a month in Europe who shared our distaste for the band, and we spent their set sitting down and talking behind the sound tent. We could still hear the music, and it became evident that there were some issues with the sound system, but the music we did here was pretty awful, so none of us cared at the moment. After this came post-punk legends The Jesus Lizard, playing their first hometown show since their 1999 breakup. Vocalist David Yow brought a perfect amount of energy and insanity and they clearly hadn't missed a step in their decade apart, but I didn't have a great view because we had moved as close to the main stage as possible so we could see Built to Spill (these two stages were essentially right next to each other). I think this was the right decision. Built to Spill is one of my favorite bands of the nineties, and seeing Doug Martsch work his magic up close was one of the highlights of the festival. They didn't play a lot of my favorite songs (no "Time Trap" "I Would Hurt a Fly," or "Broken Chairs,") but they closed with "Carry The Zero," which is probably my favorite track of theirs. They are definitely a band I would recommend seeing live at the first possible opportunity. Overall, Friday night had it's issues, mainly the fact that there were only two food vendors, absurd lines for drink tickets and bathrooms and it was far too cold, but the bands were good (for the most part) and I had fun.

Saturday opened with Cymbals Eat Guitars, a Built To Spill-like band that has exploded onto the scene with praise from blogs across the board in recent months. I'm a fan of their album "Why There Are Mountains," and their show was OK, but they clearly aren't ready to be playing in front of such a huge audience yet. I spent the next couple hours just wandering around and taking in the festival, not staying long enough at any one set to write about it (of the bands I saw during this time, I'd say the sample of Plants and Animals that I heard was strongest). I ran into some more friends, and spent the rest of day with them, first going to see The Pains of Being Pure At Heart, who sound like a mediocre Jesus and Mary Chain knock-off in studio and even worse live. After wandering around for a while in search of free stuff (there was a lot of it), I was begrudgingly dragged to Yeasayer, whom I saw and disliked at Lollapalooza last year. Thankfully, that dislike was unwarranted, and they put on a pretty good show. They had a lot more energy, the crowd was really into it and the weather was perfect. It had been cloudy and humid all day, and then it started raining in the middle of one of their most energetic tracks, which made the crowd even wilder. We then saw part of DOOM's set, which didn't seem that great and was, by most accounts, a major disappointment, but chose to stay in place for a better view of Beirut. Unfortunately, through a small communication breakdown, we wound up moving and looking for other friends, and, by the time we got back, the crowd around Beirut was full. It wasn't all bad, since we then decided to move as close as possible to the main stage for The National and just listen to Beirut instead of actually watching. It seemed like a good show, but it was kind of hard to tell. Before describing The National's show, I should point out a few things: it was my third time seeing them in about a year, they are one of my two or three favorite bands of this decade and they were my favorite band playing at the festival. Of the three times I've seen them, this was, by far, the best show. Not only were we in the third row, but the set was much longer than the others, and another year of buzz and increased popularity has seemingly given them the right levels of confidence and energy to really control the audience. Matt Berninger's booming vocals were at their best and the rhythm section was a rock-solid as always. Their were a few more issues with the sound, but overall it was a near perfect show and a great way to end the night. Many of the issues from Friday were gone by Saturday. The food and rink lines weren't nearly as long and the weather was much better. Unfortunately, the bathroom problem was still there, but they brought in about 20 more portables by Sunday, which helped solve that issue.The National

On Sunday, I got their just in time to be somewhat disappointed by Frightened Rabbit. The set from the Scottish indie-pop band wasn't necessarily bad, but it had a certain been-there-done-that feel to it, with nothing to separate it from any other indie-pop show I've seen. Next, I caught part of Blitzen Trapper's set, and they were pretty good, but I'm not sure I loved them as much as some others did. I caught parts of sets from Killer Whales (meh), Pharoahe Monch (I don't know hip-hop at all, but I thought he was good) and The Thermals (meh), before settling down for The Walkmen. We had a pretty awful view, but the sound was fine and they were good, so we enjoyed ourselves. After this, we just turned to the other stage for M83. I've never been a big fan, but the French electronic shoegazers do put on one hell of a show. Unfortunately, by this point, the main section in front of the stage was already entirely full of Flaming Lips fans, and they, for the most part, couldn't care less, which took some of the fun out of M83. After this, everyone faced a hard decision. The A stage (where M83 had just played) and the C stage were basically right next to each other. Grizzly Bear was about to come onto the C stage, but Flaming Lips were next on A, as soon as Grizzly Bear finished. Anyone with a good view of the A stage but no view of C (myself included) could either give up a good seat to rock's greatest spectacle or miss out on a great band. I chose to see Grizzly Bear and try to get the best view possible for the Lips. Grizzly Bear's latest album, Veckatimest is an early contender for album of the year, and their show didn't disappoint, even though the sound problems became a real issue and forced them to play without any monitors and varying levels. Finally, the weekend ended with a show from alternative rock's greatest spectacle, The Flaming Lips. It opened with most of the band members walking out of a giant on-screen (censored) vagina and Wayne Coyne running above the audience in his trademark giant hamster ball, and they pretty much maintained that level of gloriously giddy surrealism throughout. They also sort of participated in the write-the-night vote, but at various points, Coyne showed a sort of disdain for the list, playing the 66th most requested song and a few that nobody requested at all and some new tracks. They closed with full sing-along versions of "Yoshimi," "She Don's Use Jelly" and "Do You Realize??" and it was obvious that everyone in the crowd absolutely loved it. The show also featured bizarre video projections, tons of balloons and streamers and about two dozen people in animal costumes on stage. There really is nothing like a Flaming Lips concert, even a somewhat minimal festival version (their set was only 90 minutes, which is much shorter than their normal shows), and it was the perfect way to end a great weekend. So, for anyone who lives in Chicago, I would make Pitchfork a priority next summer.The Flaming Lips

500 Days Of Summer

2009-06-30T21:53:00.000-07:00

There are very few phrases that will almost always make me avoid a film at all cost. "Torture porn," "based on the hit Broadway musical," "tearjerker" and "starring Paris Hilton" are all certainly among them, along with "romantic comedy." Outside of Annie Hall (and some of Allen's other films if they can be accurately described as such), I can never think of a rom-com that I actually enjoy, which is why it felt so strange to actually be excited by the trailer for 500 Days Of Summer. A romantic comedy that actually looks funny? And smart? And doesn't feature Mathew Mcconaughey or Katherine Heigl? Holy shit. Add in the extremely positive buzz and Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanael as the leads and it became one of my most anticipated films of the summer, so when I found out that I could get free tickets to an advance screening, I jumped at the chance. Thankfully, it met every expectation.
The Annie Hall comment above was no accident, and it's not just the highly literate, fully formed characters, the sense of humor and the repeated references to the films of Ingmar Bergman. While this film is not as insightful when it comes to relationships as Allen's masterpiece, it is the closest any film this generation has come. Tom (Gordon-Levitt) is a writer at a greeting card company, and he believes very strongly in love, fate and finding "the one," which the narrator says was caused by "listening to too much depressing British music and a complete misinterpretation of The Graduate." Summer (Deschanael) is the new receptionist at the office, and she believes that love does not exist, likening it to Santa Clause. On day 1, Tom sees her, and falls immediately head-over-heels, but this isn't where the film begins. First-time director Marc Webb and screenwriters Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber jump around through the 500 days of the title, showing us all of the ups and downs of their relationship, usually in just the right spot. They open around day 300, right after Tom and Summer break up, as Tom's two best friends and his little sister, who is shown to be a far more emotionally mature person than he, try to console him. We see their relationship begin, and even though she always insists that they are just friends, Tom falls in love. This is juxtaposed with post-breakup Tom falling into a pit of depression, trying to find a reason for their breakup, quitting his job and blaming our societal issues with love on "greeting cards, pop songs and the movies." Around day 30, they first have sex, which is followed by a rather amusing, semi-surreal song-and-dance number. After quitting his job, Tom goes to the movies, which, in what is by far the film's best sequence, leads to shot-for-shot homages to the final scene in Persona and the first chess-scene in The Seventh Seal, with Tom and Summer taking the various roles. Later, after meeting at a mutual friend's wedding, for the first time since their break-up, Summer invites Tom to a party at her house, and we see it in split-screen, one side showing what Tom wants to happen and the other showing us reality. Throughout the film, they discuss art, music, film, architecture and every other thing that people hide behind, but they can never really come together and discuss what is happening to them and the state of their relationship, because Tom is right, the conveniences of modernity do stop us from being able to really open up, and unless two people are absolutely perfect for each other, that will not change.
500 Days of Summer is the best American film I've seen this year, but it does have one or two flaws. The first act is one of the most consistently hilarious half-hours I've seen in a film, so, as the second act begins to settle into serious-mode, it slows down a bit. The film manages to avoid most of the Sundance-cliches. It is quirky, but, for the most part, this adds to our love of the characters and is not just for the sake of being quirky. The one exception may be Tom's little sister. Her scenes are pretty amusing, but it almost always feels very forced and contrived when an adult character talks to a child for relationship advice. In all honesty, those are my only complaints. Webb generally avoids the visual flair and lets the characters be the centers of attention, and they are great characters. Both actors give career-best performances (at least from what I've seen from them, which, in Deschanel's case, does not include her widely acclaimed work in David Gordon Green's All The Real Girls) It is impossible not to fall in love with Summer, and not just because she's played by the equally impossible not-to-love Deschanel. She is just an incredibly fun and refreshing presence, plus she loves The Beatles' underrated "Octopus Garden," which had been stuck in my head all week. Tom is the center of this film, and Gordon-Levitt does a great job of humanizing a character that, in the hands of a lesser actor, probably would have come off as just depressing, and maybe kind of creepy. The film's use of music must also be mentioned. It is full of clips from and references to bands that I love, including The Jesus and Mary Chain, Pixies, Belle and Sebastian, The Smiths, Feist, Spoon and Wolfmother. All of this, plus the intelligent and humorous script adds up to what will undoubtedly be remembered as one of the year's best films. 500 Days Of Summer, more than anything else, is a very modern, very great Woody Allen film, and that should be enough to get you to see it when it comes out.
Rating (out of ****): ****

Almanac Of Fall

2009-06-14T14:53:00.000-07:00

There's something kind of strange about going through a filmmaker's work in reverse. It allows you to see the evolution of their style, what they thought worked and what failed. While not entirely intentional, this is basically what I've been doing with Bela Tarr, ever since I first saw Werckmeister Harmonies last year, which is now my favorite film (I only saw 2007's wonderful Man From London a few weeks ago, but that was because it wasn't released here until then). In fact, after watching his vastly underseen (even in the realm of Tarr, whose films are all vastly underseen) 1982 film Almanac of Fall this afternoon, I'm confident that I can now call him my favorite filmmaker. Period. Almanac is an interesting film, forming the bridge between his supposedly realist earlier films (remember, I haven't seen them), and the more difficult, allegorical films to come. It's also the only color feature I've seen from him, and his skill with the full color palate nearly reaches his abilities with black and white. The political allegory and Tarkovsky-esque camera work of his later films is here, but in a younger form, and his other influences, especially Bergman and Antonioni (and, maybe, to a much lesser extent Fellini) are more obvious in this film than in his subsequent works.
The entire film takes place in one large, dilapidated mansion. The outside world is barely shown, only intruding for two brief moments of violence. There are only five characters, and the entire film consists of their interactions. The house is owned by Hedi, a woman of about 60 and her 30 year old son Janos. There is also Hedi's nurse, Anna, who lives with her lover, Miklos. Miklos has recently invited his poor friend Tibor, a teacher to move in as well. The five of them spend the two-hour run-time manipulating and hurting each other, all of them trying to gain money and power over the others, all blaming the others for their problems. Hedi and Anna need each other, but they are always competing, and neither is comfortable with the other. Janos wants Anna, but is far too lazy to accomplish anything. Miklos is an angry man, abusing Anna and manipulating Hedi against the others. Tibor owes money to an undisclosed figure, who sends two men in to beat him. This is shown from the floor's point of view, as the entire sequence (of course done in one virtuoso shot) is shown happening on top of a glass pane. Eventually Tibur pawns Hedi's valuable gold bracelet, which further pulls everyone apart, and eventually breaks up the group, who demand a sacrificial lamb before they can return to their twisted normalcy.
It must be made clear that this is an unpleasant film. The characters cruelty and actions would seem at home in something by Von Trier, whose debut feature had been released the previous year. This has turned off many critics (many may be an overstatement given the film's obscurity, but that is unimportant), but it is necessary. The chamber-play setup as well as some of the character actions, especially the manipulative relationship between Hedi and Anna, shows Bergman's influence on Tarr. The expressive and always changing color palate was created entirely with artificial light and reminded me a bit of Fellini's Juliet of the Spirits, but this may be a stretch. The loneliness of the characters, as well as their isolation within the frame as the film uses more wide-shots in the second half, recall Antonioni. Some have seen the film as a critique of the family in general, and the isolation of the characters, especially during the requisite dance scene at the end (if you've seen another Tarr film, you know what I'm talking about) does support this, but there is more to it.
The main themes of the film (as well as the pervasive long-takes) are what I've come to expect from Tarr. The characters are all unable to accept responsibility for their actions. Tibur blames his financial woes on the situation around him, even though he was the one who borrowed from a shady character in the first place. Janos blames his lack of work on alcohol, not on his own inherent laziness. Miklos seems to blame his problems on Anna, but in reality, he's just not a good person. Anna sleeps with all three men, but says that society is at fault for any problems that it may cause. Through all of this, Tarr is saying that man is always responsible for his own actions, but, with the events at the end of the film, he is saying that human nature always calls for a scapegoat, even when the problems are everyone's fault. Given the strong political undertones of his later films, this could be interpreted as him (correctly) predicting that, while at the time people blamed communism for their problems, they would eventually blame capitalism, and the cycle would go on, with people only shifting the blame and not actually doing anything for themselves. There are a lot of long takes in this film, with each conversation usually being made up of only one or two shots, but Tarr does no rely on them as heavily as he would later. The camera work here is interesting in a different way, as Tarr and his cinematographers shoot from every angle and distance imaginable, as a way of saying that the actions of the characters, and therefore humanity, may not make any real, logical sense no matter how one looks at them. I would not put Almanac Of Fall on quite the same level as Werckmeister or Satantango, but I think I would rank it third among the master's films, which means that you really should see it as soon as possible.
Rating (out of ****): ****

The Brothers Bloom

2009-05-27T14:28:00.000-07:00

Rian Johnson's 2005 debut film, Brick, was a deservedly critically acclaimed piece of neo-noir, taking the world of Dashiell Hammett and moving it into a modern high school. Part of what made it so good was that combination of a world that is familiar because we've all lived it and a world that is familiar because we've grown up watching others live it. I was hoping for something similar when they first announced his follow-up, The Brothers Bloom. I knew it would be a con film, but I hoped there would be a twist. Unless some added quirk and an obvious Wes Anderson influence counts as a twist, my hopes were dashed, but I was not really disappointed in the film as a whole. It's not as good as Brick, which was an exciting, visually fascinating debut, but it is a very fun way to spend a couple hours.
The film opens with a way-too-long prologue telling the story of the titular brothers' first con. We see the younger one, simply called Bloom, as a romantic who is uncomfortable with their actions while the older Stephen plans and predicts everything in advance, and he is always right. The narration is heaviest here (it's really only used early), and it is pretty bad, plus the child actors are unimpressive. Next, we see the adult brothers, Bloom (Adrien Brody) and Stephen (Mark Ruffalo) and their partner Bang-Bang (Rinko Kikuchi, from Babel) at the end of their latest con. Bloom is depressed, and despite Stephen's attempts to keep him, decides to quit. After a few months of hiding in Montenegro, Stephen finds him for one last con, involving eccentric American heiress Penelope, played by Rachel Weisz. Penelope has been alone for most of her life, studying everything and picking up hobbies. Her money is limitless, and she goes through three or four different Lamborghinis in her first ten minutes of screen-time. She is fun and quirky and Bloom quickly falls for her. Under the guise of antique dealing, the group winds up in Prague, and through a complicated, but still perfectly clear (one of the film's strengths is that it doesn't heavily rely on bad expositional dialogue) scheme, they get part of her money and move to Mexico to get the rest. Here, parts of the brothers' pasts and Bloom's feelings for Penelope begin to become an issue, and Bloom begins to wonder how he can get her out of the game.
The film does have issues. There is a lot of really obvious foreshadowing in the beginning, and, despite the stunning locations, I was kind of disappointed in the visuals. Johnson fails to really utilize everything around him, and many of the shots that do work don't come up until the end. There are also some cliche moments in the script, especially when the brothers constantly talk about living an "unwritten life," but the good certainly outweighs the bad in terms of dialogue. The film's sense of irony and some of the camera motions (especially in the way it pans from person to person) come off as Wes Anderson-light. If you added some brighter colors, a bit more irony and replaced Ruffalo and Brody with Owen and Luke Wilson, it would probably be a pretty good Anderson picture, but I love Anderson's work, so this didn't really bug me. Whatever flaws I found were outweighed by the breezy sense of fun and adventure. A large part of this was due to the actors. Brody's character is the "normal" one, and, while he isn't great here, he provides a solid emotional center. Ruffalo gets some juicy monologues, and he does a very good job with them, creating a likable character where a lesser actor would have seemed too sinister. Weisz, who I'm normally not a huge fan of, shows that comedy is one of her strengths, perfectly portraying her character's awkwardness and her transformation into a "normal" person. The real star in this film is Kikuchi. I hated Babel. I think it's one of the worst films of the decade, just the equally bad Crash on a larger scale, but she was very good in her Oscar-nominated role as a Japanese mute. Here, she plays a Japanese mute again, but this time her character exists mainly for laughs, and she gets them. Every little look she gives, even from the background, completely steals the scene, and the audience, at least in my screening, reacted wonderfully to her character.
The film manages to avoid many of the cliches of the con-man film (although some just have to be there) and there are some great bits of dialogue ("My brother writes jobs like dead Russians write novels") and memorable characters. I'm not sure what exactly the film was aspiring to be, but, despite a couple little issues here and there and the fact that it doesn't quite live up to the fantastic poster at the top of this review (seriously, how awesome is that thing?), it works wonderfully as a fun and breezy adventure story.
Rating (out of ****): ***

Terminator Salvation

2009-05-21T17:49:00.000-07:00

In recent months, despite the large amount of time I spend on Rottentomatoes, I've grown wary of the Tomatometer. See my recent review of The Limits of Control for a good example of this. I was hoping that the same sentiment would hold for the newest entry in a franchise that helped to define my childhood, Terminator Salvation. I was wrong, and the film's 39% seems about right. I first saw Terminator 2: Judgment Day when I was six or seven (probably a poor decision on someone's part), and while certain things flew over my head, including the various references to the first film, which I didn't see until years later, I still loved it. I watched it again last week in preparation for the fourth film, and it has held up. It's still one of the all-time great action films. I don't think the first film has held up quite as well, but it's still pretty fun. The third film was the first not directed by series creator James Cameron, and it showed. Jonathon Mostow's film wasn't terrible, but doesn't reach the quality of the first two. McG's entry in the series is about half as good as Mostow's. I've been waiting since I was a kid to see the future war between man and machine, and the only thing it did was leave me feeling underwhelmed.
I guess I should have expected this. McG, despite recent successes in television, is still the director of Charlie's Angels, and it was written by the guys who did Catwoman, but the ace cast and the source material gave me hope. This hope was very quickly dashed. The film opens with Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) on death row in 2003. Before his execution, he agrees to donate his corpse to Cyberdyne systems after meeting an executive named Serena (a bald Helena Bonham Carter). Flash to the future (2018 to be exact), and we meet adult John Conner (Christian Bale), not yet leader of the resistance, who loses a large part of his team in the first of the film's many dull action scenes. Conner (using Bale's far-too-serious Batman voice) goes back to the resistance's submarine headquarters and finds out that they have a plan to destroy Skynet and end the war by changing the system's signals. He also discovers that Skynet has a kill-list, with his name second. First is Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin), the man he will eventually send back to protect/impregnate his mother in the first film (as for his mother, Linda Hamilton has a voice cameo on a series of tapes that are played to catch up audiences who forgot). We then meet the rest of John's team, including his wife Kate (Bryce Dallas Howard) and right-hand-man, Barnes (Common). Marcus suddenly wakes up in Los Angeles, and after exploring the post-apocalyptic landscape, meets Kyle. They encounter a few giant robots/Transformers rejects who engage them in a series of repetitive, sepia-toned action sequences. Eventually, Skynet captures Kyle, and Marcus runs into Blair Williams (Moon Bloodgood) a pilot for John's team who has been shot down. They head back to the base (in order to keep a PG-13 rating, a sex scene between the two, presumably in this part of the film, was cut, which is stupid, because it muddles the rationale behind their future actions), but before getting there, Marcus steps on a mine. This is where the film's first big twist, you know, the one that's been a major part of every trailer, is revealed. Eventually, Marcus and John attack Skynet's core. Along the way, we get references to the famous lines from the other films and one surprise "cameo" (is it a cameo if it's just a digitally created version of the actor?). There is more violence, and then the movie ends.
Terminator Salvation was not all bad. It's certainly better than Angels & Demons or Wolverine, but it is not good. I can ignore the logic/continuity errors (24 year-old Claire Danes aging into 29 year-old Bryce Dallas Howard, who looks about 24, in the 15 years between the events of T3 and Salvation, as well as switching from vet to doctor who can perform human heart transplants was almost too much), and the special effects were certainly impressive, but the action, which makes up about 80% of the movie is repetitive and dull and the dialogue that makes up the other 20% is a boring mix of cliches and references to past films. Some of the actors, especially Yelchin, who also impressed in Star Trek, and the Australian Worthington, who will be a major star by the end of the year due to his starring role in James Cameron's highly-anticipated Avatar, do a great job with what they have, but the others don't. Common is distractingly bad during his scenes and Bale never leaves his one-note, overly-intense Batman-mode. The emotional moments, which were what separated T2 from most 90s action films, all fall pathetically flat, as none of the relationships are believable or given enough screentime to make us care. Surprisingly enough, I don't think I can really blame this on McG. There are a few good looking shots, and the pacing is perfectly fine, so I'm going to blame it on the writers, John Brancato and Michael Ferris. Bad dialogue and the same action scene constantly repeating itself are what sink this film. The two really good performances (Kyle and Marcus both have roughly equal screentime with John, which helps), the effects and the nostalgia factor save it from being total crap, but I can't recommend this film.
Rating (out of ****): **

The Limits of Control

2009-05-08T18:51:00.000-07:00

As a film critic (sort of), do I have the right to grant a director a certain limit of self indulgence if he's never failed me in the past? I think so. Apparently other critics disagree. The Limits Of Control, the latest film from American master Jim Jarmusch, is also the worst-reviewed film of his career, scoring a rather pathetic 26% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. To an extent, I do understand the hatred. While the film is not ideologically complicated, it is a bit difficult to sit through. The entire thing is a few minutes of silence, followed by a short amount of dialogue, repeated for 115 minutes, the main character only says six or seven full sentences, three of which are in the final scene, and the entire thing is obviously more concerned with aesthetic than plot. Conveniently, these are things that I tend to love. Now, it does run a bit long, and there are some clearly overly self-indulgent touches from Jarmusch, but sometimes you just have to accept these things. It's not a perfect film by any means, and it probably won't hold up anywhere near as well as Stranger Than Paradise or Dead Man, but I'm still pretty sure that it's worth seeing.
The characters are not given names, so I'm just going to use the descriptions given by IMDB (which has the film erroneously titled No Limits, No Control). The main character, "The Lone Man," a hired assassin is played by Isaach De Bankole, who has appeared in a few of Jarmusch's films before, but never as a lead. It opens with him meeting the "creole" and "French," who give him a speech on life, and how anyone who thinks they're better than others should go to the cemetery, because then they see what life is: dirt. This idea is constantly repeated throughout. They then give him a matchbook with instructions for his next contact, a man with a violin. He goes to Spain to meet him (the rest of the film takes place in Spain, I'm not sure where the opening took place). He goes to a cafe, orders two espressos in two separate cups (something else that is repeated throughout), and meets the man, who gives him another matchbook, and the cycle goes on. It all sounds rather boring as a description, so I'll just go with the highlights. Tilda Swinton plays a mysterious blonde contact who discusses film, and the idea that the best images in film are the same as our greatest dreams (I'll get to this later). Paz de la Huerta plays a contact who is nude for the entirety of her screentime. I had no problem with this. A contact on a train discusses molecules. John Hurt plays a contact who discusses the nature of Bohemianism and gives Isaach a guitar. Gael Garcia Bernal is a contact who discusses history and myth. Someone is killed (not on screen), and our only real chance to see Isaach's emotions is blurred in shadow, which was probably the right decision. Finally, at the end, Bill Murray plays the target of this convoluted assassination, and he, as others have pointed out, is clearly channeling Dick Cheney, and he discusses power and control. After his mission is over, Isaach cleans up and goes on. We never know who ordered it or why any of this has happened, but I guess it doesn't matter.
I probably shouldn't have spent so much time on plot. It's not that relevant. Basically, it's saying that technology and government are bad, while bohemianism and art are good. Nothing remotely new or groundbreaking, and that's not the point in this film. First, it's probably important to discuss De Bankole's performance. The camera is focused on him for nearly the entire time, and it studies his face and body. During the silent scenes, he is near-perfect, and, after Jarmusch's homage to Le Samourai in Ghost Dog, it's hard not to compare him to Delon's protagonist in Melville's masterpiece. Then he occasionally opens his mouth, and these moments aren't as good. His dialogue isn't that great, but he doesn't do too much with what he gets. Still, the physical nature of his performance is fantastic. There's also the music. Jarmusch uses a post-rock score to perfection, and the film picks up whenever the music starts.
However the real star of this film is Christopher Doyle's cinematography. In my opinion, Doyle deserves to be mentioned in at least the same category as Roger Deakins and Emmanual Lubezki, arguably the two most well-known working cinematographers among most film buffs (with good reason). To quote a friend of mine, Wong Kar Wai's masterful "In The Mood for Love will make your eyes cum rainbows," and Doyle's photography is a huge part of it. While The Limits of Control may not reach that level of beauty, it is still a fantastic looking film. The shots of the actors and settings, using great lighting and Jarmusch's standard lingering pauses, pull the audience in and allow us to look around if we're not in love with what's happening on screen, although many of these pauses do last a bit too long. During the first part of the film, there are some shots that seemed really obviously cinematic in nature, which sort of bugged me, but Swinton's speech on beautiful images in film and dreams clears this up, and almost makes it a commentary on those shots in Jarmusch's past work (although I don't know if that's how he meant it to be seen). As we are reminded throughout the film, "reality is arbitrary," and there are moments where the color shifts, the background appears to be a bit off or the editing brings attention to itself (this last one really doesn't work too well here) that remind us of this idea.
Overall, it is an undoubtedly beautiful film, with some very good performances and great music that's hurt by an ultimately shallow premise, a bit too much lingering (and this is coming from someone who considers The Werckmeister Harmonies his favorite film, so there is a lot of lingering) and questionable editing. I wish I hadn't made this blog under a 4-star system. I don't think it's a three-and-a-half star film, but it's better than a three. Well, I guess this is where that benefit of the doubt I was talking about comes in.
Final rating (out of ****): ***1/2

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

2009-05-01T12:55:00.000-07:00

It doesn't take much to make a film that is simply bad. A weak story, poor direction and bad acting aren't uncommon. On the other hand, it takes some kind of perverse talent to make a film that is completely and utterly useless in every single way. If the performances are good, they must be wasted, if the director has talent, he must be far over his head, if the writers know what they're doing, well, then it probably wouldn't be completely useless. X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a completely useless film. It's entire 100-minute run-time is devoted to useless exposition and bad action scenes expanding on the backstory in the far superior X2: X-Men United, which is probably my favorite non-Batman, non-Hellboy superhero movie. The actors are fine, even if some seem to phone it in and director Gavin Hood has proven to be at least somewhat talented as a filmmaker with the Oscar-winning Tsotsi, so I'm placing a lot of the blame here on the writers and the studio. The writers because, well, it's Skip Woods, whose previous credits include Swordfish and Hitman, and David Benioff, who wrote Troy and The Kite Runner. I shouldn't have expected much out of that. The studio because, well, it's Fox. When a workprint version of the film leaked a month ago, they immediately came out and said that it was incomplete, that, along with unfinished effects and musical cues, scenes were missing. This was, of course, a blatant lie. I watched the workprint, and I actually enjoyed it a bit more, because at least we could see into the process of designing special effects, although given the godawful effects in Wolverine, maybe it wasn't the best place to learn (if anyone is wondering why I saw it again after disliking the workprint, I wanted to take a break from studying for finals, a friend asked me to go and I figured the updated effects may help). Here's a little hint for Fox: incomplete effects cannot make up for shallow, dull characters, complete failure in terms of emotional connection and an idiotic plot that spends large portions of time trying to retcon with the first X-Men film and ends with giving its character amnesia, just to make sure.
In a laughably bad (more so than the rest of the film), opening sequence, we discover that James (Wolverine) and Victor (Sabertooth) are brothers who grew up in 1860s Canada. Somehow they move to America and stop growing at arbitrary ages (apparently those of Hugh Jackman and Liev Schreiber), fight in all our wars and eventually join a team of other mutants (one of the only things I liked about this film was seeing Dominic Monaghan and Kevin Durand, who, played Charlie and Keamy respectively on Lost, on a team together). The team does bad things and James leaves and decides to call himself Logan. He works as a lumberjack in Canada for a few years and lives with his girlfriend. They seem happy, but the dialogue between them is so cliche and uninteresting that I just didn't care. Victor starts killing old members of the team because, shocker, he is working for the obviously evil colonel who was directing the team in the past. Victor kills Logan's girlfriend, they fight and Logan loses, but Col. Stryker (remember, he was also the bad guy in X2) gets Wolverine to allow himself to be injected with metal to become stronger and kill Victor (we don't know that Stryker is evil yet). This is a ruse, which Logan figures out, and he escapes. While in hiding on a farm, he meets a nice old couple who give him life advice, and are then killed at the start of one of the most idiotic, cliche-riddled action sequences I've ever seen. I didn't think there were actually movies any more where people walked away from explosions without turning around or showing any reactions. Didn't that go out of style with Bad Boys? If a movie does that in a clever, self-aware or parodic way, I'm OK with it, but Wolverine is none of those things. This begins a cross-country chase, where Wolverine meets up with another former member of the team, played miserably by Will.i.am, but, no worries, he is soon killed by Victor. Logan meets with Gambit, a mutant who had been held by Stryker at his headquarters on 3-mile island (yes, it is that stupid). I think they want us to care about Gambit, but, like everyone in this film except Logan, Stryker and Victor, he only has two or three minutes of dull, wasted screentime. Somewhere in there, Victor and Stryker capture Cyclops when he is still a child (they don't even attempt to retcon this). Logan gets to the island, there is more dull action and exposition, including what is apparently a complete bastardization of the character Deadpool (I haven't read the comics, but I can imagine the fanboys being rather angry about such a dull villain taking the place of the popular character). Eventually, Stryker shoots Wolverine in the head with an Adamantium bullet, which apparently erases his memory of everything that happened in the film. Oh, also, Charles Xavier (an unintentionally hilarious de-aged Patrick Stewart) shows up in a cameo to rescue young Cyclops and the other mutants from the island.
I guess I should mention the one...not bad thing about this film (I really don't want to use the word "good" in relation to this garbage). The actors, especially Jackman and Schreiber are fine. Their roles are awful, but that's more of a script thing than anything. Otherwise, there really isn't a single way in which this film succeeds. The plot is idiotic and useless (I think I'm going to watch X2 right now, just so I can remember that this story can be told well), none of the supporting characters are given more than five minutes of screentime and whatever attempts at development go on in that time invariably fail. The dialogue is cliched and obvious beyond belief and the film's attempts at emotional connection (Logan and his girlfriend, the old couple on the farm and Logan and Victor's eventual, inexplicable reconciliation) are beyond laughable. Last, and arguably most important in a film like this (a superhero film without aspirations to be something more, like Dark Knight and Watchmen), is just how fucking dull the action scenes are. Seriously, the exposition in between was pointless and kind of stupid, but the action sequences range from boring (the fight between Logan and Gambit) to purely idiotic (the chase scene after Logan's escape). I wasn't expecting Dark Knight, X2 or Hellboy 2 levels of greatness, but I also wasn't expecting Ghost Rider, Fantastic 4 or Catwoman levels of trash, and that's what this is.
Rating (out of ****): *1/2

State Of Play

2009-04-17T19:08:00.000-07:00

Let's go back eight years. Imagine that, in April 2001, Russel Crowe and Ben Affleck had opened a well-received political thriller with an impeccable source material and a popular, talented supporting cast featuring multiple recent Oscar nominees. It would have opened at number one and people would be talking about it for a while. Crowe was coming off of his Oscar win for the wildly successful Gladiator, and he was quickly becoming one of the most popular and respected leading men in Hollywood and Affleck was still a super star. Unfortunately for director Kevin MacDonald, Universal and the stars, State Of Play is not being released in 2001. Since then, Crowe has one more Oscar, but a series of personal mishaps and mediocre films (plus an added forty or fifty pounds) have taken away from his stardom, although he remains a very good actor. For Affleck, April 2001 would be a month before the wreck that was Pearl Harbor and two years before Gigli was unleashed on an unsuspecting public, effectively killing his career for a while. Since then, he has managed to calm down his personal life and regain some respect in Hollywood, both as an actor and director, but he is nowhere near the powerhouse he was at the beginning of the decade. I say all of this because, while watching this film, I couldn't help but think about the cycle of power in Hollywood, and how odd it was that these former titans were staring in a pretty good film that not many people will see (hopefully I'm wrong and it does well).
Crowe plays Cal McAffrey, a Washington Globe (I assume they couldn't use a real paper) reporter lost in the digital age. After a quick look at a seemingly unconnected murder, he hears about the apparent suicide of Sonia Baker, an aid to his college roommate, Congressman Collins, played by Affleck (never mind the fact that Crowe looks at least ten years older than his costar). Despite some objection from his editor, Cameron Lynn (played wonderfully by Helen Mirren), he begins working with young Blog writer Della Frye (Rachel McAdams) and starts to fit the pieces together (in here, he meets a medical examiner played by Viola Davis, presumably before her breakout role in Doubt). It begins to look like Sonia's murder was planned by PointCorp, a private military corporation that Collins has been investigating (unfortunately, here the plot really resembles the latest season of 24). In there is a somewhat unnecessary side plot about Cal's affair with Collins' wife, played by Robin Wright Penn. Despite the abilities of the actors, it just doesn't feel right in the film and could easily have been cut. As everything begins to come together, Cal and Della visit with Dominic Foy, a PR man played by Jason Batemen, who proves that he can excel in the right role. There are two twists ahead, one painfully obvious one involving the congressman played by Jeff Daniels (sure he's a good actor, but he doesn't really need to be here) and the second, only slightly less obvious one, involving a shadowy character we've seen a few times throughout.
Getting back to my question at the beginning, I should probably note that this is not a film that could have come out in 2001. There are three main issues at work here that are a huge part of our world today. Two are very much in the public eye and one is well known in certain circles. First is the line of journalistic integrity. There are multiple scenes questioning the morality of the interactions between journalists and police. These scenes are rather obvious in their nature, and I assume they played a stronger role in the beloved original BBC miniseries, which I have not seen. Next is the issue of Blackwater-style private armies. The issue is more of a MacGuffin in the context of the film, but it does exist. once again, it is somewhat heavy-handed, and I've been watching the same thing on 24 for weeks. The third issue, and the one that resonates most with me as a communications student, is that of the changing nature of the news industry. At the very beginning, we see a new "Mediacorp" ownership sign in the paper. The corporate masters control what prints in the paper, and the bloggers are seen to be more powerful and in vogue. Cal's Woodward and Bernstein-style reporting is seen as archaic and slow in the modern world (Woodward, along with other well-known news figures, appears in a cameo as a background reporter during a press conference).
As for the film itself, it isn't perfect. Neither twist is particularly unique or unexpected and some scenes fall flat, but the tension is there when it has to be and it makes a pretty good point about the news industry. The performances are all pretty good (especially Crowe, McAdams and Mirren) and the script is interesting when it needs to be. It looks a bit too slick at moments, but the direction is certainly competent, and there are a few really good shots (a certain sequence in a parking garage and the final confrontation come to mind). It's not a great film, but it's a good thriller that's elevated by its great cast.
Rating (out of ****): ***

Tokyo!

2009-04-10T19:28:00.000-07:00

The trailer for Tokyo! asks us the film's essential question: "Do we shape cities, or do cities shape us?" The three parts of the film, each by a different director, all answer the question in their own way. The three sections all take place in a very modern Tokyo and, aside from the aforementioned question, deal with transformation, anarchy and rebirth, respectively. The first (and best) segment is "Interior Design," directed by Michel Gondry of Eternal Sunshine fame. The second, Merde, is directed by Leos Carax, who also made Lovers On The Bridge and Pola X. The final segment, Shaking Tokyo, was created by Bong Joon-ho, most famous for The Host. I think I have to rate the films on their own, but as an overall experience, Tokyo is a must-see. Everything comes together to form a beautiful portrait of the city, and a far more authentic one than the type allowed by an anthology like Paris je t'aime.
Gondry's opening segment, Interior Design, is about a young couple who move to Tokyo for their careers. The husband is an aspiring filmmaker, but his work is extremely dense and comically overwrought (the sequences of his film that we do see are probably the funniest moments in the film), and it only plays in a porn theater. His wife is even less assured. She can't find work and she loses the car. They are staying with a friend, but she wants to get rid of them, even though it's impossible to find suitable housing. The husband seems happy, and people are seeing his film. Eventually, the wife begins to disappear in the city, between the walls. Then she turns into a chair. I'm sorry if that's a bit spoilery, but I rarely get to write "then she turns into a chair." It vaguely reminds me of my last paper on The Metamorphosis. This film shows a more restrained Gondry than normal (yes, even with the chair thing). His wild, innovative visuals made Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind an instant classic, but they didn't work as well on or The Science Of Sleep or Be Kind Rewind. Until the end, this is simply a very good looking film (although not the best looking of the three). Even the effects showing her transformation aren't the focus. Interior Design is the lightest of the three films, and it makes a great introduction to the tone of the film and to the city itself.
Leos Carax's Merde is the strangest part of Tokyo by a fairly large margin (yes, that includes the chair thing and the robot pizza man in the third one). I haven't seen any of Carax's other work. I assume they don't all concentrate on sewer-people running around cities terrorizing people. You probably couldn't maintain a respected career on that premise. Merde opens with a fantastic tracking shot showing the main character (eventually named Merde) running down the sidewalk and just generally bothering people. He pushes them, steals their money and cigarettes, eats their flowers and just generally makes them uncomfortable. He is hideous and mumbling in an incoherent language. Next we see him running through the sewers where he finds some grenades, which lead to another fantastic sequence. After this, the film goes down a bit in terms of quality. A lawyer who looks exactly like him and speaks the language flies in from France to represent him at his eventual trial, and the rest of the segment deals with his trial and sentencing while the rest of the country riots in his support and defense. Some of these moments have a rather unpleasant feel to them. I can't think of a good way to describe them aside from that, but they just felt a bit off. The word that it is tagged with is anarchy, but I think it deals more with language barriers, Japanese nationalism and parodying Godzilla (especially in the opening and closing moments). The Godzilla stuff probably works best, but overall it's still a fun time, just not so much in the second half.
The final segment, Bong Joon-ho's Shaking Tokyo, is far less funny than the others, but is also the best looking of the three. I have not seen Bong's extremely successful film The Host, but his 2003 film Memories of Murder is one of the best procedurals I've ever seen (it's better than the very similar Zodiac) and helped kick off what has been a brilliant decade for Korean cinema. The film is about a Hikkomori (a type of shut-in that has become a large issue in recent years in Japan) who has not left his home in ten years. His father sends him money and he subsists off of delivery food, especially pizza. One day, as his pizza is being delivered, an earthquake strikes, and the beautiful delivery girl falls unconscious. He tries to help her without contact, but eventually he sees a tattoo of a power button (like on an X-box) that says coma. He presses it and she wakes up and observes the odd perfection of his OCD-like collections of pizza boxes. This causes her to become a shut-in as well. The man decides that he has to find her and ventures outside for the first time in years. When he gets outside, he discovers that everyone else has gone inside. The only thing he sees is a pizza-delivery robot. After another quake, everyone runs outside and he finds her, and another button makes her stay. This segment is about rebirth. The story is the most conventional, but it's simply a beautiful film. Every shot is well-framed and carefully considered, creating a fascinating beauty in the clutter of the man's home.
So, do we shape cities, or do they shape us? Well, Interior Design, seems to come down on them shaping us. The characters change (in many ways) when they get to Tokyo, and the wife is "shaped" into something completely different. Merde's lead character certainly shapes his city. A cult forms around him and parts of Tokyo descend into anarchy. Shaking Tokyo is somewhere in between. Hikkomoris are a trend in Tokyo, and the stresses of the city are probably to blame, but the man certainly shapes the world around him. I think that's why it was shown last, even though the tonal shift seems a bit off when they go from two comedies to a drama. Overall, while it may not be completely consistent, Tokyo! is a wonderful look at the city and the people that make it.
Rating (out of ****) ***1/2

Hunger

2009-03-27T18:56:00.000-07:00

It's been a pretty decent couple of years for Ireland in film. First came the palm d'or winner The Wind That Shakes The Barley (a very good film, although it was the only English language film I've ever needed subtitles for), the the delightful musical Once and now, the best of the three, Steve McQueen's Hunger. This is the story of Bobby Sands and the hunger strike he organized at HM prison Maze in order to get IRA members treated as political prisoners. This is a brutal, uncompromising look at the strike, its causes and its effects. McQueen (I can't believe this is his real name) is a well-known, award-winning visual artist making his feature film debut here. The fact that the director is an actual artist is something you should keep in mind during this film. The framing on nearly every shot is clearly the work of a meticulous worker (while he doesn't take this to Kubrickesque levels, there are a couple shots, especially in the hallways of the prison that remind me of Kubrick). Playing Sands is Michael Fassbender, who has had a few small roles in the past, but nothing of this magnitude.
As the film opens, we see a man look into a mirror and wash off his bloody knuckles. We don't know who he is at the time, but we later find out that he is a guard at the prison. He isn't a terrible guy, but we see him do bad things. His final scene is one of the most disturbing I've seen in recent years, but that doesn't come for a while. After we see him go through his day, a new prisoner comes in and refuses to wear his uniform. He is marked as insubordinate, and is forced to strip naked (this movie is not at all shy about nudity) before putting on a blanket (it was part of an ongoing protest). He gets to his cell and discovers that his cellmate had been smearing his shit on the walls as part of another ongoing protest. He doesn't seem to mind, and eventually joins in, but soon the guards come to wash them off. This is where we first meet Bobby. They drag him, kicking and screaming, from his cell, cut his hair and make him into a bloody mess. Even though he is the main character, this doesn't happen until thirty minutes into the film, although nearly no dialogue had been spoken through that point. Next, we get a virtuoso sequence in which, following a small riot, the guards march the prisoners out, send them through a gauntlet of baton-wielding riot police and then have them cavity searched, on-by-one, by a guy who never takes off his gloves. A large part of this is done in one take. Bobby is brutally beaten for not allowing the guards to search him, and we see the psychological effects of this on the guard who is forced to hit him. We don't really sympathize, but it's something. Next, after another moment of shocking violence, we get the film's centerpiece. Bobby has decided to organize a hunger strike, but unlike failed ones of the past, he organizes it so that they will die if their demands aren't met. Bobby lays all of this out in a seventeen minute conversation with a priest played by Liam Cunningham. What makes this conversation so notable is that the entire 17 minutes is done in a single take where the camera never moves. This is supposedly the longest single take in any feature film. After this, we flash to a few weeks later, and we see Bobby whithering down. There is little dialogue near the end, but the physical transformation is tremendous. Fassbender does a fantastic job of expressing every little emotion and pain that he must go through. We know from the outset that Bobby dies, but the brutality of the whole thing is shocking. Did he really accomplish anything? Was he a martyr or a rabble-rouser just trying to start a civil war?
I don't know Bela Tarr's viewing habits, but if he watched this film I'm sure he was proud. The master of the long take's old joke that the 12 minute reel is a form of censorship seems to have been disproved (I'm not entirely sure how they did it). The 17 minute conversation, despite simply being a static camera focused on two men is one of the most charged and tense in recent years. it speaks mainly to the immense talents of the two actors, but also to the film around it. Before this take, there had been very little dialogue. In fact, I'd say at least 75% of the dialogue in the 90 minute film comes in this one take. It's so new and unexpected that we get dragged in and we never leave. The conversation switches between comic statements on the nature of the priesthood to questions of the morality of Bobby's actions with ease, and we completely buy it. Fassbender and Cunningham lived together for weeks, rehearsing 15-20 times a day, to be able to get everything just right, and its worth it.
Like The Wind That Shakes The Barley, this film may be a little to obvious in its politics. The use of Margret Thatcher sound-clips may be a bit over the top, but that film's biggest failing was its complete lack of humanization of the British. here' we know that the guard at the beginning probably isn't a bad guy, and the guard who beats Sands is distraught over it. It isn't much, but acknowledging the humanity of the other side is an important step to avoid seeming to flat and one-sided. The film's final moments have also drawn some criticism, with some saying that the final moments make him too much of a Christ-like figure, but that was set up from the beginning (his long hair and beard at the beginning are very reminiscent of The Passion), so I don't really mind. This film sets up McQueen as a filmmaker to watch and will hopefully draw attention to the issues in Ireland. Whatever side you're on, they aren't finished yet.
Rating (Out of ****): ****

Made in USA

2009-02-21T12:21:00.000-08:00

Has any other director ever had a burst of creativity like Jean-Luc Godard in the sixties? Starting with Breathless, moving through Vivre Sa Vie, Bande a Part, Alphaville (his masterpiece in my opinion), Contempt, Masculin Feminin and ending with Week End (with eight or nine other films mixed in there for good measure), this burst of creativity forever changed cinema across the world. A film from that period which has always been lost in the shuffle is 1966's Made in USA. It was never released in America because Godard never paid for the rights to adapt the book it was based on, he just did it, and, due to the subsequent legal action, Made in USA never came to the USA. Thankfully, the Boston Museum of Fine Arts decided to include it in their ongoing series on Godard in the 60's and I was able to go. I hope this means the legal issues have been resolved and Criterion can get their hands on this, because this is a film that deserves a wider audience. It is just as deserving of high praise as any other film on that list.

Godard's muse/wife Anna Karina plays Paula Nelson, who travels to Atlantic City (which, for the sake of this film, is in France) to visit her lover Richard, only to discover that he has died under mysterious circumstances. She runs into an old associate of theirs named Typhus, who she quickly knocks out and dumps in his own room, which allows her to meet his nephew David, who is a very strange writer, and his Japanese fiance. As she investigates Richard's death, the police discover that someone has killed Typhus, and things begin to spin out of control. I'm going to stop the plot description here because it would be utterly pointless to go on. Like The Big Sleep, which was a heavy influence on this film, the plot becomes too much to actually explain. I know it is a political thriller has something to to with communism, but that's pretty irrelevant aside from the fact that, at this point, Godard sure loved his communism. They never really explain why most of the things that happen happen, so you're best off just going along for the ride.

Godard was famous for saying that all he needed to make a movie was "a girl and a gun." Karina is the perfect girl for him. Taking on a rather Bogart-esque role, she looks perfect in the requisite trench-coat and the wear and tear of starring in so many films in such a short period of time gives her the perfect look for someone in her line of work, whatever that may be. She also delivers the film's best line "we were in a political movie-Walt Disney with blood" with a perfect amount of irony and anger in her voice. As that line implies, this film is almost comically self-aware, although it stops before it hits pure comedy, which would just seem out of place in a Godard film. The other aspects you'd expect are also there. We get characters named after American pop-culture icons (two henchmen named Richard Nixon and Robert MacNamara), wonderfully jarring mid-scene edits and tons of guns and trench coats. Although, in some ways it is different from the traditional Godard-fare. It was only his third color feature, and the cinematography from Raoul Coutard, who worked on many of Goadard's films is just fantastic.

There is a fascinating paradox inherent to this work. Godard spends much of the film decrying the spread of western culture, calling advertising a form of fascism, but he is obsessed with that same culture. Would he exist without American gangsters? I'm not sure. It may not even matter, but it is something to think about. Hopefully you'll think about it while watching this film.

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

Coraline

2009-02-14T10:00:00.000-08:00

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a huge fan of the recent proliferation of 3D films. I think many of the films using it are too gimmicky and use it to make up for lack of a story. Henry Selick's Coraline thankfully manages to avoid this. Selick, who was previously best known as the answer to the trivia question, "who really directed The Nightmare Before Christmas?" does a good job of adapting the popular Neil Gaiman novella, and he uses the power of 3D technology to perfection, creating what is bound to be remembered one of the most beautiful films of the year. Selick and his team combined the stop-motion animation of Nightmare and Corpse Bride with some CGI to create two very unique worlds. The film is not perfect, but it is probably the best 3D film in recent years.
In the beginning, a young girl named Coraline (voiced by Dakota Fanning) moves into a very boring new house that is filled with intriguing characters. There is Wyborn, a young boy who follows her around with his cat, two retired actresses who read her fortune and a crazed Russian who trains mice for a circus (voiced by Ian Mcshane). After fighting with her parents, Coraline finds a small door that leads into a parallel version of her world. In it, her parents are extremely nice, the actresses are still beautiful, Wyborn doesn't stalk her and the Russian is completely sane. Most importantly, everything appears to be magical. The garden in this world is probably the most visually stunning part of the film, and everything just pops out wonderfully in 3D. However, she soon realizes that all of it is a trap, and her "other mother" intends to keep her there forever. After escaping back to the real world, she finds out that her "other mother" has kidnapped her real parents, and she must go back and save them, along with the souls of other children that she had kidnapped. This if the film's weakest point. It plays out like a mission from a cheap video game, and the suspense never really works.

It's difficult to look at this film and not compare it to Nightmare Before Christmas and Corpse Bride. Aside from the obvious use of stop-motion, they tell similar stories of looking for happiness in alternate worlds. Coraline lacks the pure magic of those two, although it may be even more aesthetically pleasing. I guess it may be the fault of the original story, but the end is pretty weak, and it really offers nothing new. Still, with absolutely nothing in the pipeline until the long-awaited release of Watchmen next month, Coraline should be good enough to hold you over.

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

Wendy and Lucy

2009-01-25T13:11:00.000-08:00

My next post was going to be my top twenty of 2008, but then I discovered that Kelly Reichardt's new minimalist film Wendy and Lucy opened in Boston for one week, and I decided that I should try to see as many of last year's highly acclaimed films as possible before I made any list. This film can, at least in terms of plot, be compared to Sean Penn's Into The Wild. Unlike that film, Wendy and Lucy does not seek to create a martyr for our times out of it's lead. Into The Wild did succeed, but that was because of the supporting characters and the performance of Emile Hirsch. Wendy and Lucy succeeds because we're not asked to bow to it's main character and because of the performance of Michelle Williams. Williams plays Wendy Carroll, a young woman driving from Indiana to Alaska with her beloved dog Lucy in search of work and a new start. We never learn much about her life before we see her, just a quick conversation with her brother-in-law. As the film picks up, Wendy and Lucy walk through the woods, taking a break from their long journey, only to meet a group of similar lost souls. Later that night, she stops her car in a Walgreen's parking lot and in the morning, after being woken up by a kind security guard, she finds that it won't start. The mechanic is closed, so she decides to go pick up some food for Lucy. Running low on cash, she has to steal and is caught by a self-righteous grocery store employee. It becomes clear that he is an evangelical Christian, and with his warped, evil view of religion, he convinces his manager that he must call the cops. When she is released, she runs back to the store where she'd tied up Lucy and discovers that the dog is gone. Despite help from the pound, she can't seem to find her, and she discovers that her car repairs will cost much more than expected. One night, while sleeping in the woods, a man comes to her and talks about the people he's killed. He doesn't do anything, and in all likelihood, he may be lying, but it helps clarify her situation. As her economic situation falls deeper into despair, Wendy realizes that she has lost control, and no longer has any idea what she must do, before coming to an extraordinarily difficult decision regarding her future.

Many reviews have discussed the film's political message about the plight of the marginalized people in today's society, but it's moral message is far more important. Outside of Wendy, there are only two good characters in this film, the woman at the dog pound (who is really just doing her job) and the security guard who helps her when he can, and even his flaws appear at the end. The religious grocery store worker, the cops, the mechanic and the insane man who speaks to Wendy may occasionally do her or someone else a favor, but they are not good people. The real question of this film is what do we owe each other as human beings? The film's answer is that we should give what we can. Even the difficult decision that Wendy must make at the end fits into this answer.

The film's strongest point is Michelle Williams' inexplicably snubbed performance as Wendy. She appears in nearly every frame of this eighty minute film, and her performance is the dominant feature of all of them. Wendy is not street smart, and she does not completely understand the world around her, and Williams perfectly captures that idea. A film portraying the outsiders in our modern world just works better if shot in a more natural minimalist style, which made Reichardt, who also directed the critically acclaimed Old Joy a perfect director for this piece. Instead of the sweeping vista's we'd normally expect from this sort of film, we get smaller shots of the real west, of the people who inhabit it and the emptiness around them. If the film has one flaw, it's that the story itself really isn't that great. The film gets by on style and character, but it has a rather standard story that we've all seen before. This alone could leave some people feeling underwhelmed, but they should not feel that way. Wendy and Lucy may not be the classic that some are calling it, but it is one of the better films of 2008.

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

Best of 2008

2009-01-22T15:38:00.001-08:00

OK, I wanted to wait until I'd seen The Class, and now that I have, here's my top 25 of 2008.

25. Hellboy 2: The Golden Army -The year's second best superhero film only further showcases Del Toro's brilliance when it comes to visuals, even if the story is somewhat absurd.

24. The Fall- Yes, this film is highly flawed, and most of the scenes in the hospital only take away from the story itself, but it also features some of the best visuals in any film of this or any year.

23. The Band's Visit- This is one of the two Israeli films on my list this year, and while it wasn't quite as powerful as the other (I think you know what it is), this simple, lighthearted story has a lot to say about the idea of peace and friendship in the middle east. This is a film that everyone should see, just to understand what it's like over there, because this is very realistic.

22. Religulous- Bill Maher's mockumentary on religion is not for everyone, and many will find his style abrasive, but this film is constantly hilarious and has an important message.

21. Pineapple Express- This is one of the funniest films the Appatow crew has put out, although it still wasn't able to live up to the trailer (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/6f25e84ca3/pineapple-express-red-band-trailer-from-judd-apatow-james-franco-and-seth-rogen), which is one of the funniest I've ever seen. Franco was fantastic, and he earned that golden globe nomination. David Gordon Green's visual talents may be somewhat underused, but this is still by far the best looking Appatow film.

20. Gran Torino- Sure, the supporting actors were a joke, and the story wasn't exactly unique, but two hours of Clint Eastwood making racist jokes is far more entertaining than it had any right to be.

19. Revolutionary Road- Great performances highlight Sam Mendes' look at suburban disillusionment. Winslet's best actress nomination should have come from here, and Michael Shannon's best supporting actor nod is much appreciated. The only issue is that the whole thing winds up feeling a bit too cold and intellectual at certain points.

18. Wendy and Lucy- Kelly Reichart's heartbreaking minimalist commentary on the American economy gets by on Michelle Williams fantastic performance, which may have been this year's strongest from a leading actress.

17. Burn After Reading- A decent Coen Brothers film is still better than most other things. While it lacks the depth of No Country, and the pure entertainment value of Big Lebowski, it is a fun film filled with fantastic performances from the A-list cast.

16. Man On Wire- One of this year's best documentaries is a fascinating heist tale and a beautiful remembrance of the world trade center. This is the best reviewed film of all time according to Rottentomatoes.com

15. In Bruges- The "hitmen having an existential crisis" genre has been done to death since Pulp Fiction. This is the first time that it's been done well. Great performances, great direction and a wonderful screenplay elevated this thriller far beyond the normal constraints of the sub-genre

14. Wall-E- This incredibly adorable film is one of the best Pixar has ever done. The second half is a bit of a drop off, but the first half is as good as anything else this year.

13. Vicky Christina Barcelona- This incredibly sexy and entertaining film is Allen's best in years. Bardem continues his winning streak, Cruz and Hall are perfect and Scarlett Johanson...looks really good. Allen perfectly captures the feelings of Spain.

12. Milk- This timely film is loaded with great performances, especially from Penn, Franco and Hirsch. Although it sticks to many conventions of the traditional bio-pic, it works perfectly inside these conventions, giving us a heartbreaking true story.

11. Trouble The Water- This underseen nominee for best documentary tells a stirring tale of survival after Katrina. Using large amounts of footage shot on the ground by aspiring rapper Kimberly Rivers-Roberts and her husband Scott, this is a tale of redemption and a commentary on the lack of anything resembling support that the Bush administration gave to the poor people of New Orleans.

10. Snow Angels- David Gordon Green's depressing story of small-town life boasts great performances from Sam Rockwell and Kate Beckinsale. It is visually brilliant, heartbreaking, and as powerful as any other film this year.

9 . Encounters At The End of The World- Werner Herzog is my hero. Him bringing his act down to Antarctica and combining it with stunning nature photography leads to one of the year's best documentaries

8. Let The Right One In- This coming of age vampire story is, by a rather large margin, the strongest horror film in years. There are a couple missteps (the CGI cats just look stupid), but great performances and fantstic visuals, as well as a generally creepy story that doesn't rely on gore or cheap jump scares elevate it far bayond the normal constraints of the genre.

7. The Class- Now, I haven't seen L'enfant, but based on what I have seen, this is probably the strongest winner of the Palm d'or since at The Pianist back in 2002. Leaving behind the constrains of the traditional heartwarming film about teachers in the inner city, this is a realistic look at life in a poor Parisian school. The students hate the teachers, the teachers can't deal with the students and the parents are stuck in between. Shot with hand-held style footage and featuring great performances from writer François Bégaudeau and most of the kids in the class, this really is one of the year's strongest efforts.

6. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button- David Fincher's fantasy is the strongest of the best picture nominees and his best film since Se7en. Yes, there are similarities to Forrest Gump, but this film has better performances, fantastic visuals far more interesting themes of life and death and is less sappy and overly sentimental.

5. Rachel Getting Married- Jonathon Demme's best film in years fully immerses us in the lives of it's characters, especially Kym, played to perfection by Anne Hathaway. Some have criticized it as being too slow. I don't really like those people.

4. Waltz with Bashir- Ari Folman's animated documentary was the best foreign film, animated film and documentary of 2008. This movie looks great, has a fascinating score and does a great job exploring the themes of war and memory. It's still in theaters, so see it.

3. The Dark Knight- This is the best superhero film of all time. I don't think it's even close (hell, I'd probably call Hellboy 2 the second best superhero film, so here's a good look at the gap). Nolan's slick visuals, a smarter-than-average script and the best supporting performance of the year from the late, great Heath Ledger are what really pulled this up onto that level and made it a modern masterpiece that will be discussed for years to come.

2. The Wrestler- Aronofsky's best film yet is also his most personal. Mickey Rourke is on screen for almost every second, and he has the perfect combination of ability and charisma to pull it off in one of the year's best performances. Marisa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood also shine in supporting roles, but Rourke is the star here. Also, Springsteen's title track was absurdly snubbed in favor of two songs from that piece of shit Slumdog Millionaire. Really?

1. Synecdoche, New York- the year's best film has it's best script, leading performance and supporting actress (Samantha Morton). Unfortunately, the academy didn't quite get it. Just go back and read my original review. My opinion hasn't changed.

Sigh The Oscar Nominees

2009-01-22T13:01:00.001-08:00

Ok, here's the full list of nominees, courtesy of Yahoo. I'll also include how many of my predicted nominees made it

1. Best Picture: " The Curious Case of Benjamin Button ," "Frost/Nixon," "Milk," " The Reader ," " Slumdog Millionaire ."

Of these, Curious Case was the best, then Milk, then a very wide gap followed by Frost/Nixon and then an even wider gap followed by the atrocious Slumdog (it would feel redundant to go back and edit my review of Slumdog again, but that ** rating is starting to feel too high for a film that should have gone straight to DVD, which was the studio's original plan). I still refuse to see The Reader. 4 of my 5 predicted nominees made it.

2. Actor: Richard Jenkins , "The Visitor"; Frank Langella , "Frost/Nixon"; Sean Penn, "Milk"; Brad Pitt, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"; Mickey Rourke, " The Wrestler ."

I didn't see The Visitor, but I like Jenkins, so it's nice to see him nominated. Langella was good, but not great in a very mediocre film. Penn and Pitt were both very good and Rourke, who had better win, was fantastic. I'd much rather see Dicaprio (for Revolutionary Road) and the others I mentioned in my other entry than Langella or Pitt. 4/5 made it

3. Actress: Anne Hathaway, "Rachel Getting Married"; Angelina Jolie, " Changeling "; Melissa Leo , " Frozen River"; Meryl Streep, "Doubt"; Kate Winslet, "The Reader."

I hope Hathaway wins, she was my favorite in this group. Leo is a good underdog story, so it's nice to see her here. Streep just wasn't good at Doubt. Winslet deserved it for Revolutionary Road, but I always thought The Reader was a supporting role for her. I didn't see Changeling, so I won't comment on Jolie. I'm shocked that they snubbed Sally Hawkins, and I'm disapointed that Rebecca Hall didn't sneak in. 2(3?)/5 made it. I don't know if I should count Winslet or not.

4. Supporting Actor: Josh Brolin , "Milk"; Robert Downey Jr ., " Tropic Thunder "; Philip Seymour Hoffman , "Doubt"; Heath Ledger , " The Dark Knight "; Michael Shannon , " Revolutionary Road."

It's great to see Downey on here, and Shannon and Brolin were both great (I'd have picked Franco and Hirsch over Brolin out of the supporting cast of Milk). Ledger should win and I think he will. I love the work of PSH, but Doubt just wasn't that good. 3/5 made it

5. Supporting Actress: Amy Adams, "Doubt"; Penelope Cruz, " Vicky Cristina Barcelona "; Viola Davis , "Doubt"; Taraji P. Henson , "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"; Marisa Tomei, "The Wrestler."

Well, if I had known that WInslet was being submitted as a lead actress for The Reader, I would have put Adams into the fifth spot, as she is my favorite of these five. Cruz and Henson were both excellent. Davis was very good, but I think people have overrated her performance. Tomei would be my second pick; her performance was brave and heartbreaking, and she made a perfect compliment to Rourke. 4/5 made it

6. Director: David Fincher, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"; Ron Howard, "Frost/Nixon"; Gus Van Sant , "Milk"; Stephen Daldry, "The Reader"; Danny Boyle , "Slumdog Millionaire."

Fuck Slumdog. It just wasn't a very well-directed film (neither was Frost/Nixon, but Slumdog was much more disapointing) This went as expected, with the exception of The Reader getting it over TDK. 4/5

7. Foreign Film : "The Baader Meinhof Complex," Germany; "The Class," France; "Departures," Japan; "Revanche," Austria; " Waltz With Bashir ," Israel.

Of these I've only seen Waltz with Bashir, which was fantastic. I really want to see The Class, but it won't be here for a while.

8. Adapted Screenplay : Eric Roth and Robin Swicord , "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"; John Patrick Shanley , "Doubt"; Peter Morgan , "Frost/Nixon"; David Hare, "The Reader"; Simon Beaufoy , "Slumdog Millionaire."

Once again, same as expected except with The Reader instead of TDK. 4/5
9. Original Screenplay: Courtney Hunt, "Frozen River"; Mike Leigh , "Happy-Go-Lucky"; Martin McDonagh , "In Bruges"; Dustin Lance Black, "Milk"; Andrew Stanton , Jim Reardon and Pete Docter, "WALL-E."

So I guess The Wreslter, Synecdoche and Rachel Getting Married really were just too much for the sensibilites of the academy. In Bruges, Milk and Wall-E were great, and I'm sure the others were good, but really? Nothing for the year's three best original screenplays? 2/5

10. Animated Feature Film : "Bolt"; " Kung Fu Panda "; "WALL-E."

Bolt ahead of Waltz with Bashir? I guess it doesn't matter, since WALL-E has this locked up

11. Art Direction: "Changeling," "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," "The Dark Knight," "The Duchess," "Revolutionary Road"

The three I saw all looked fine. It's not like I was expecting The Wreslter or Rachel Getting Married to be nominated here anyway, but Synecdoche had some really fantastic set design

12. Cinematography : "Changeling," "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," "The Dark Knight," "The Reader," "Slumdog Millionaire."

Curious Case and TDK were good. I'm done talking about Slumdog for now. There were no standouts a la No Country or TWBB this year.

13. Sound Mixing: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," "The Dark Knight," "Slumdog Millionaire," "WALL-E," "Wanted."

Wanted was nominated for more Oscars and Synecdoche New York. The academy should be ashamed

14. Sound Editing: "The Dark Knight," "Iron Man," "Slumdog Millionaire," "WALL-E," "Wanted."

Wanted was nominated for more Oscars and Synecdoche New York and Rachel Getting Married combined. The academy should be ashamed

15. Original Score: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," Alexandre Desplat ; "Defiance," James Newton Howard ; "Milk," Danny Elfman ; "Slumdog Millionaire," A.R. Rahman ; "WALL-E," Thomas Newman .

I hated the music in Slumdog, and the music in TDK was far better than any of the nominees. Otherwise this is ok

16. Original Song: "Down to Earth" from "WALL-E," Peter Gabriel and Thomas Newman; " Jai Ho " from "Slumdog Millionaire," A.R. Rahman and Gulzar; "O Saya" from "Slumdog

Millionaire," A.R. Rahman and Maya Arulpragasam.

Two songs from Slumdog, and they ignore Springsteen's song from The Wrestler? I don't give a shit about Springsteen and even I love that song. Now we have to listen to the two songs from Slumdog during the actual ceremony. Great job AMPAS

17. Costume: "Australia," "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," "The Duchess," "Milk," "Revolutionary Road"

I'm ok with this

18. Documentary Feature: "The Betrayal (Nerakhoon)," " Encounters at the End of the World ," "The Garden," "Man on Wire," " Trouble the Water."

I loved Encounters and Man On Wire, and I haven't seen the others. Waltz with Bashir really should have been nominated

19. Documentary ( short subject ): "The Conscience of Nhem En," "The Final Inch," "Smile Pinki," "The Witness — From the Balcony of Room 306."

I have no idea

20. Film Editing: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," "The Dark Knight," "Frost/Nixon," "Milk," "Slumdog Millionaire."

Nothing special about Slumdog or Frost/nixon, the others were good.

21. Makeup: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," "The Dark Knight," "Hellboy II: The Golden Army."

I fully support these choices
22. Animated Short Film: "La Maison en Petits Cubes," "Lavatory — Lovestory," "Oktapodi," "Presto," "This Way Up."

No idea

23. Live Action Short Film: "Auf der Strecke (On the Line)," "Manon on the Asphalt," "New Boy," "The Pig," "Spielzeugland (Toyland)."

No idea

24. Visual Effects: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," "The Dark Knight," " Iron Man."

Hellboy had far better effects than the severly overrated Iron Man

I hate the academy. They ignore Synecdoche and give out three total nominations to The Wreslter and Rachel Getting Married. They snub The Dark Knight in the best picture race in favor of The Reader, a film whose basic plot I find so insulting, to both history and the viewer, that I refuse to see it and their outdated rules stopped Let the Right One In from getting a nomination for best foreign film. Worst of all, they continue the needless amount of praise heaped on Slumdog, a film that history will hopefully allow us to forget very soon.
As a side note, the first two episodes of the fifth season of Lost were absolutely perfect, so even all of this can't make me that mad.

Waltz With Bashir

2009-01-17T06:40:00.000-08:00

As a preface to this review, I should probably note that I am a non-practicing Jew who has spent a decent amount of time in Israel and has many friends currently in the Israeli army. I say this because these facts made it very difficult to simply review Ari Folman's Waltz with Bashir on an intellectual level. This was one of the most emotional movie-going experiences I've ever had. This animated documentary (I'll get to that later) is one of the most highly acclaimed films in Israeli history, and was one of my most anticipated films of 2008. It has already won the Golden Globe for best foreign language film and is the front-runner for the Oscar in that category as well as a dark horse in the best animated feature category (although I'd be shocked if anything actually beat Wall-E). When I first heard that this was an animated documentary, I really didn't know what to think. It just sounded like too much of a contradiction, unless you count an animated educational film as a documentary. Waltz With Bashir has advertised itself as the first feature-length animated documentary, and, given the way it is filmed, I agree with that label. The film is centered around a series of interviews and discussions between Folman and others who were with him in the 1982 war with Lebanon. These sequences were first filmed in a studio, and then the animators drew them separately (it was not rotoscoped, like Waking Life or A Scanner Darkly, which is where they animate over the actual image). Then their interviews lead to a story of flashbacks and hallucinations about the war. At first I didn't realize how these could be considered part of a documentary, but I realized that they are no different from the reenactments in The Thin Blue Line, except in that they use a separate medium.
As the film opens, Folman sits in a bar with an old friend from the war who explains a recurring dream in which he is chased down the street by 26 angry dogs. In Lebanon, they knew he couldn't kill humans, so his commanders made him kill the guard dogs instead, and he sees this recurrent nightmare as his punishment. After this interviews, Folman realizes that he doesn't remember a thing about the war except for one hypnotic flashback where he and two others wake up in the ocean and walk into Beirut, only to see a large crowd fleeing the Sabra and Shatila massacres, in which a large group of Christian Lebanese entered two Palestinian refugee camps and slaughtered the refugees while the Israeli guards just stood by, paralyzed by the chain of command. Folman goes to interview one of the men who was in the dream (he can't remember the other), and, through interviews with him and various others who were there in that time, he begins to put together what happened. Through this, we get a series of fascinating, interconnected vignettes about the war and its effect on people. The only one of these that doesn't work perfectly involves Folman working a VCR so his colonel can watch porn; however this is soon followed by the best scene in the film. As they entered Beirut following the assassination of Lebanese leader Bachir Gemayel (pronounced Bashir), Folman's company faced heavy enemy fire. After a few minutes, his commander knew that they needed to cross the street, so he grabbed a heavy machine gun and walked out, shooting into the air, performing a crazed Waltz amid the gunfire and posters of the fallen leader. Near the end of the film, there is an abrupt switch from animation to archival footage. This scene, aside from showing the true effects of war in far greater detail, perfectly uses the dreamlike imagery of animation to contrast the real, and reminds us of the line between dream, memory and fact.

I really can not express my admiration for this film enough. Every little detail was alternatively fascinating and heartbreaking. The animation was both dreamlike and beautiful, perfectly capturing the feel and the themes of the film. The score, which won composer Max Richter best composer at the European film awards, is occasionally overbearing, but otherwise perfect, especially during the main hallucinatory sequence. Folman is a perfect guide for this journey, always allowing the story to come out on it's own, and the interviewees, from his friends to the reporters to the military higher-ups at the end, all give us the exact piece of the puzzle that we need from them. My emotional connection to the people and places in the film certainly helped my personal reaction to the story. I can't deny that, but this is an important film, especially now, and it is something that everyone should see. Waltz with Bashir really is one of the best and most innovative films of 2008.

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

Oscar Predictions

2009-01-14T17:21:00.001-08:00

Ok, the Globes are (thankfully) over, I've seen most of the perspective nominees (I'm just waiting on Waltz with Bashir and maybe Revolutionary Road, I refuse to see The Reader) and most of the award shows have announced their nominees, so it's time for my Oscar picks. First will be my dream ballot, then my actual predictions

Best Picture:
Hope:
Synecdoche, New York
The Wrestler
The Dark Knight
the Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Rachel Getting Married
Actual:
Slumdog Millionaire
Dark Knight
Benjamin Button
Milk
The Wrestler
Most people have Frost/Nixon making it over The Wrestler. I just can't believe that they'd nominate two films as needlessly mediocre as Slumdog and Frost/Nixon, and while Slumdog was unquestionably the lesser film, it also has much more hype. The Wrestler was the best reviewed non-documentary of the year.

Best Actor:
Hope:
Mickey Rourke The Wrestler
Sean Penn Milk
Phillip Seymour Hoffman Synecdoche, New York
Brendan Gleeson In Bruges
Sam Rockwell Snow Angels
Actual:
Sean Penn
Mickey Rourke
Brad Pitt Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frank Langella Frost/Nixon
Clint Eastwood Gran Torino
Dicaprio is the dark horse, but I doubt he'll get it. The academy is far too stupid to actually honor Synecdoche, and they've already forgotten In Bruges and Snow Angels. Langella and Eastwood were fine, so I'm not really complaining.

Best Actress:
Hope (honestly, I haven't seen that many films with female leads this year, so I'm just basing this on actresses I like):
Anne Hathaway Rachel Getting Married
Sally Hawkins Happy-Go-Lucky
Kate Winslet Revolutionary Road
Rebecca Hall Vicky Christina Barcelona
Cate Blanchett The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Actual:
Hathaway
Hawkins
Winslet
Hall
Merryl Streep Doubt
I don't know much about this category. Streep gets the nod over Blanchett because she's Streep.

Best Director:
Wish:
Charlie Kaufman Synecdoche, New York
David Fincher The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Chris Nolan The Dark Knight
Darren Aronofsky The Wrestler
Jonathon Demme Rachel Getting Married
Actual:
David Fincher
Chris Nolan
Danny Boyle Slumdog Millionaire
Ron Howard Frost/Nixon
Gus Van Sant Milk
I think the directors of the five best films deserve the nominations (all five films had great visuals in their own way). Ron Howard is a bad director. People don't seem to understand this. Danny Boyle is a good director. Slumdog is his worst film. Even fewer people seem to understand this. I have no problem with Van Sant getting the nomination. Milk was a very well-directed film.

Supporting actor:
Wish:
Heath Ledger The Dark Knight
Emile Hirsch Milk
Javier Bardem Vicky Christina Barcelona
Robert Downey Jr. Tropic Thunder
Ralph Fiennes In Bruges
Actual:
Ledger
Brolin Milk
Fiennes The Reader
Phillip Seymour Hoffman Doubt
Javier Bardem Vicky Christina Barcelona
I refuse to see any films that can be described as manipulative dreck about the holocaust, so I haven't seen The Reader, but I do love Fiennes, and his performance in In Bruges was wonderful. Doubt just wasn't that good, so I'd rather see Hoffman's spot go to Downey, who gave the year's funniest supporting performance. They may be marketing Bardem as a lead actor, but he was great. Ledger should win.

Best supporting actress:
Wish:
Penelope Cruz Vicky Christina Barcelona
Amy Adams Doubt
Samantha Morton Synecdoche, New York
Marissa Tomei The Wrestler
Rosemarie Dewitt Rachel Getting Married
Actual:
Cruz
Tomei
Kate Winslett The Reader
Taraji P. Henson The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Viola Davis Doubt
I'm in the minority on this, but I thought Amy Adams gave the best performance in Doubt, and essentially saved the film from absolute mediocrity. Things that make me angry: 1. The lack of any love for Synecdoche

Original Screenplay:
Wish:
Charlie Kaufman Synecdoche, New York
Robert D. Siegel The Wrestler
Jenny Lumet Rachel Getting Married
Andrew Stanton Wall-E
Martin McDonagh In Bruges
Actual:
Lumet
Stanton
Black
Woody Allen Vicky Christina Barcelona
The Coen Brothers Burn After Reading
Why can't anyone recognize the brilliance of Synecdoche? Burn After Reading was great, but not really Oscar-worthy. I'd be perfectly ok if Allen was nominated.

Adapted Screenplay
Wish:
Eric Roth Benjamin Button
Jonathon Nolan, Christopher Nolan, David S. Goyer The Dark Knight
John Ajvide Lindqvist Let The Right One In
David Gordon Green Snow Angels
Dan Gilroy, Tarsem The Fall
Actual:
Roth
Nolans and Goyer
Simon Beaufoy Slumdog
Peter Morgan Frost/Nixon
John Patrick Shanley Doubt
The Fall really didn't have a great screenplay, but there weren't that many films I liked this year from adapted screenplay, namely the final three films listed here.

Dream major nominee count:

Synecdoche: 5

The Wrestler: 5

Rachel Getting Married: 5

Benjamin Button: 4

Dark Knight: 4

Milk: 3

In Bruges: 3

Vicky Christina Barceona: 3

Snow Angels: 2

Happy-Go-Lucky: 1

Revolutionary Road: 1

Tropic Thunder: 1

Doubt: 1

Let The Right One In: 1

The Fall: 1

Wall-E: 1

I'll pick winners after the actual nominations come out

The Wrestler

2009-01-05T13:13:00.000-08:00

Darren Aronofsky's films have always had a polarizing effect on audiences. Personally, I have at least sort of enjoyed all of his films. Pi is kind of a mess, but it was interesting enough to keep me watching, Requiem for a Dream is one of the most perfectly disturbing films of all time (can anyone give a legitimate explanation for Ellen Burstyn losing best actress to Julia Roberts?), and The Fountain, aside from some mediocre acting, is a pretty good film. All of those films are highly stylized and do occasionally rely too heavily on different camera and editing tricks to get the point across. When I finally saw the preview for his latest film, The Wrestler, I was shocked. The film looks like it was shot on a handheld camera (just like Rachel Getting Married) and uses none of the stylistic tricks of Aronofsky's earlier work. This film simply relies on a great story, good, simple (at least for Aronofsky) direction and one of the great screen performances in recent years from Mickey Rourke as Randy "The Ram" Robinson.

As the film opens, the camera stays behind Rourke as he sits in the changing room after a match. He walks out and the camera follows him, almost afraid to show his battered face to the crowd. The other wrestlers and the devoted fans all treat the Ram as a hero, and his opponents are honored to lose to him. His promoter gets him to agree to fight a rematch of his most famous bout, against a wrestler called the Ayatollah, at an upcoming convention, and Randy, now relegated to weekend fights in high school gyms and rec centers, sees it as his shot at a comeback. That night he goes to a strip club to see his one friend not involved in the wrestling industry, a dancer named Cassidy, played by Marissa Tomei. She is nearly Randy's age, and she can also sense that her days in this career are coming to an end. During the days he works, unloading boxes at a grocery store. After a brutal match involving barbed wire and a staple gun, Randy has a heart attack, and his doctors tell him that he must quit wrestling. He tries to leave the ring, pursue Cassidy and reconnect with his teenage daughter (played by Evan Rachel Wood), but nothing works out. Despite their obvious connection, Cassidy has a thing against dating customers, and his daughter hates him, deservedly so, for never being there and ruining her life. Even when he has a shot with her, he forgets to go, and she decides that they will never see each other again. Randy realizes that his life is in the ring, and he reschedules the rematch. The final shots of The Ram giving it all for the crowd in what he knows may be his final match are among the most intense and heartbreaking in any film this year.
Without Rourke, this film would have been nothing. If you have read any reviews of The Wrestler, you have heard enough of how Rourke's career path perfectly follows Randy's. The audience's knowledge of Rourke's life, going from Hollywood heartthrob to broken down boxer to resurrected star, adds to the depth and reality of the performance. The Ram's final speech to the crowd, where he talks about how he has always done this for them, feels more real than any other moment in film this year. If the Oscars were actually based on artistic merit and not politicking, Rourke would already have his trophy. As it stands, he is the leader in a race with Sean Penn for Milk and Frank Langella for Frost/Nixon, which I plan on seeing later this week. Since the academy will no doubt ignore Phillip Seymour Hoffman's work in the criminally underrated Synecdoche, New York, the other nominees will probably be Brad Pitt for his great work in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and either Clint Eastwood, Leonardo Dicaprio or Richard Jenkins. I can say with full certainty that Rourke's performance is the best of the bunch. outside of Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood and maybe Hoffman in Synecdoche (the two performances are very different but essentially equal in my mind) it is probably the strongest leading role over the last few years. Tomei also got a golden globe nomination, and I think her work was strong enough to earn her a best supporting actress nomination later this month. Finally, just as a matter of note, any film that can make me forget how much I hate Guns 'n Roses, even if it's just for a few minutes, must be a great film, and that certainly describes The Wrestler.

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

Man on Wire

2009-01-04T20:40:00.000-08:00

My choice for favorite documentary of 2008 (to be fair, I haven't seen that many documentaries in 2008) appears to be coming down to two of the year's best reviewed films, Werner Herzog's Encounters At The End of the World and James Marsh's Man on Wire, which currently stands at a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, making it the best reviewed film in the history of the sight. Unless you count the animated Waltz With Bashir, which doesn't open anywhere near me for a few weeks, as a documentary (some do, some don't, I'll wait until I see it to decide), these two are set to form a very solid top two. What I find so interesting about this is that the subject of Man on Wire, high-wire artist Phillipe Petit, seems like someone from an Herzog documentary. He may not be as insane of Timothy Treadwell (Grizzly Man), and his actions would feel out of place in Herzog's world, but his obsession fits in perfectly. After seeing an article on the construction of the world trade center, Petit, who had already walked across the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris, knew what he had to do, and his singular obsession began to grow.

Using Thin Blue Line-like reconstructions, archival footage (the film's strongest part) and interviews with Petit and his huge supporting crew, we see him begin his obsession, find the friends and enablers necessary to pull off a job so huge and, finally, we see the heist-like trip to the roof and mid-morning journey across the chasm separating the two iconic buildings. Part of what makes the story so interesting is the fact that it feels like a heist film. Nearly every element of a classic heist film appears as part of their plan (Petit is a fan of the genre). What made this specific heist so appealing to Petit (and the public) was that he managed to do something this exciting and entertaining without the possibility of hurting anyone except himself (unless you count his one friend who was deported). It was an entirely self-sacrificing action which fulfilled his own needs while providing an entirely new and original entertainment for the masses. There was no "why?' to his actions, no real reason, he just knew that it had to be done.

For a film based on a true story with an obvious ending to succeed, it must make us forget what we know and truly care about how that ending came about. Milk was able to do it perfectly, and Man on Wire succeeds just as well. Petit is constantly interviewed throughout the film, and we are fully aware of the fact that he survived, so the heist-like tension that Marsh creates is necessary to keep the audience involved. The reenactments are very well done, and the interviews with Petit and his gang are equally fascinating, providing necessary quick insights into the psyche of a man who would do this, but I wish there had been a bit more archival footage, especially of the walk itself.

While it is clearly on everyone's mind for the entire film, the events of 9/11 are never explicitly mentioned. In an interview with the BBC, Marsh said "What Philippe did was incredibly beautiful...It would be unfair and wrong to infect his story with any mention, discussion or imagery of the Towers being destroyed." At first, I didn't quite agree, but I think this was the right choice. While hearing Petit's thoughts on the attacks would have added a different kind of emotional depth, I think the film is much more poignant as is. Man on Wire serves as a beautiful study of one man's obsession with the towers, and it reminds us of what we lost without forcing anything upon us, which is how this amazing story had to be told.

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

The Day The Earth Stood Still

2008-12-13T12:27:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-12T13:29:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-11T17:11:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-06T13:29:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-22T22:00:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-15T18:28:00.001-08:00

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

2008-11-15T08:43:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-13T17:20:00.000-08:00

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)

2008-11-10T19:24:00.001-08:00

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)

2008-11-07T21:51:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-05T20:46:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-05T13:03:00.001-08:00

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)

2008-10-31T16:10:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-12T17:33:00.000-07:00

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...

2008-10-11T11:34:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-08T21:18:00.000-07:00

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)

2008-10-06T20:50:00.000-07:00

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)

2008-10-05T18:51:00.000-07:00

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): ****

2008-10-05T14:35:00.000-07:00

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.

Bubba's film reviews

2009 so far

Pitchfork Fest

500 Days Of Summer

Almanac Of Fall

The Brothers Bloom

Terminator Salvation

The Limits of Control

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

State Of Play

Tokyo!

Hunger

Made in USA

Coraline

Wendy and Lucy

Best of 2008

*Sigh* The Oscar Nominees

Waltz With Bashir

Oscar Predictions

The Wrestler

Man on Wire

The Day The Earth Stood Still

Doubt

Paris, Texas

Milk

Slumdog Millionaire

Let The Right One In

Quantum of Solace

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

Chopper (Dominik '00)

Synecdoche, New York (Kaufman '08)

Obama's favorite films

The films of Michael Crichton

Brand Upon The Brain (Maddin '06)

Body of Lies and Rachel Getting Married

I just watched a couple documentaries...

Best of the year, so far

Appaloosa (Harris '08)

Religulous (Charles '08)

Sigh The Oscar Nominees