The Rundown (2003)

3/5

I was always kind of interested in this movie because I like The Rock, Seann William Scott, and Christopher Walken. The movie succeeded as an entertaining action movie with clever recurring comic interludes and surprisingly fleshed-out characters. The action throughout most of the movie was really really cool, although the first fight sequence was a bit too hard to comprehend due to the strobe lights. The fighting was never overedited, with long, medium takes so you can always tell what's going on. It wasn't extremely funny, but it was funny enough for an action movie.

The acting from all parties was nothing to write home about; even Christopher Walken was pretty stale. Every so often it looked as if he forgot his lines and was trying to remember them. The plot was predictable and some characters' motivations were unconvincing. The special effects were cheesy when present, although thankfully it only happened twice. Overall, though, it achieved what it set out to achieve. I recommend it for anyone who is looking for a funny movie with developed characters and excellent action.

Disclaimer: I saw this on network TV, so it was edited for content and length.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0327850/

Curse of the Golden Flower (2006)

3/5

Coming out of the theater, I had no idea what I just spent eleven dollars and two hours of my life watching. I found almost no point to this movie and no real meaning, theme, or message. Or any pleasure in its viewing. After thinking back on it, talking about it, and trying to analyze it, I see much more depth than I first gave Zhang Yimou credit for. He has made some of the best movies China has to offer and he definitely knows what he's doing here. There ended up being several pretty significant and ubiquitous themes that I initially missed. There are laws on this earth that cannot be changed, you cannot take by force what isn't given to you, and no matter how big familial quarrels are, history will continue on unchanged--we are small and meaningless in the long term. However, it was not the kind of movie I thought it would be, so there was a severe difference between my expectations and what the movie offered. I think the movie is also at fault to some extent, as it tries to be both an action movie/martial arts epic and also drama of family intrigue.

There were a couple of absolutely blissful shots in the beginning and end. This was no doubt aided by the stunning set design. The music was nearly flawless; it added tension from the start and an operatic, epic mood throughout that worked perfectly. The acting was also fantastic; Chow Yun Fat has such a commanding presence and Gong Li simply owns the camera. The movie attempted to be a Chinese Hamlet, with insanity, familial deceit, a slow disintegration of order, and everybody dying at the end. It actually pulled it off pretty well.

The action in the beginning was really cool, but it wasn't sustained. The editing style was unexpectedly non-traditional, bizarre, and jarring; I couldn't understand the point and therefore didn't appreciate it. Some scenes and some of the acting was a bit too theatrical for me and didn't really fit within the movie. I didn't like the large battle sequences; they didn't feel real and were unnecessarily time-consuming. I was also pretty sad that Chow Yun Fat didn't get much screen time. It's actually a pretty good movie if you can get into it; just don't expect something like Hero or House of Flying Daggers.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0473444/

Invincible (2006)

3/5

There were some surprisingly well-crafted long tracking shots and well-carried out editing. Mark Wahlberg's acting was actually pretty good. It was, all in all, a pretty entertaining underdog inspirational movie. It didn't last too long and probably wasn't in violent disagreement with reality (at least when it came to football). It was what I expected from a Disney movie.

It got extremely saccharine several times and ludicrously so. These moments were not only sappy (slow motion smiling and laughing and longing looks), but also overlong. The music made it even more melodramatic sometimes, although other times it was used effectively. It seemed to end too quickly, and yet I have no idea where it would have gone afterwards without completely forgoing facts. It seemed to go in many different directions and not really understand its point, so there were a lot of loose ends left open. It ended somewhat abruptly, like this review.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0445990/

The Ox-Bow Incident (1943)

4.9/5

This movie is a searing indictment of how our society functions when we take the law into our own hands; how we try to one-up each other in mob groups and decide we can't back down until we do something we regret; how we jump to conclusions and information gets distorted when emotion gets in the way of communication. But more importantly, it's a powerful, unforgettable portrayal of innocence and injustice, making mistakes and living with regret.

The camerawork, shot composition, and editing were well-done throughout, with some scenes of exceptional flourish and one in particular that blew me away (a long tracking shot after the titular moment that ends on shadows on the ground). The acting was also quite good by Henry Fonda, but also by some lesser-known actors. The minor characters were so richly developed and the town was magnificently textured, much in the same way as Rear Window (how there were intricate stories for the tenants being watched).

It seems like some scenes were added for no real reason (for example, the scene where Rose comes back to town married). The plot was also somewhat predictable; you knew what had to happen for the message to have any power or meaning. Even so, it was a tense 75 minutes, hoping and praying the men don't make the wrong decision.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036244/

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)

4/5

This movie is an unforgettable icon and the peak of the adventure genre: traveling around the world solving ancient puzzles and just barely avoiding death, all while having the time of your life. Every scene is unforgettable and stays with you years and years after you first watch the movie. Watching it once again, a certain electricity spread throughout my body that allowed me to relive the adventure once more and ignore everything going on around me. Repeat viewings do not diminish the experience, but enhance it. The pacing is splendid, the musical score memorable, and the fun ubiquitous.

Technically, the editing and camerawork was only slightly above average and not very noteworthy. The plot is predictable and the action, while flashy and exciting, isn't very tense due to the comic flair they add to every scene. Also, it really isn't anything more than an adventure movie; there is no message or theme or emotion in this movie. But that just adds to the fun of it all! This movie is pure joy.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0097576/

Swingers (1996)

4/5

Swingers is the epitome of the guy equivalent to a chick flick, and it is hilarious. Like Pulp Fiction, it thrives on pop culture references. It captures both a generation and a perspective flawlessly. There are some extremely effective scenes (when Mike decides to call Niki, the awkwardness was palpable--I literally squirmed in my seat). Unlike most comedies, this movie actually has a solid foundation, plot-wise and message-wise. And it succeeds: it's funny.

Some scenes go on for too long or don't really have much of a point (for example, the swing dancing). Also, the movie doesn't age well; it digs itself deep in 90's culture and gets stuck there, in terms of language, clothing, and references. The filmmaking becomes a little self-indulgent sometimes. Overall, a very effective, character-driven comedy that very accurately looks at the dating world through guys' eyes.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0117802/

Apocalypto (2006)

4/5

Apocalypto is a thrilling, edge-of-your-seat action movie. The pace never lets up, and the action sequences are on par with some of the best moments from Miami Vice. The violence is raw and gruesome, but never too much to handle. Much of the filmmaking is old school and calculated, such as the build-up of tension and even the action itself (taking out enemies one by one). Something I respect about the movie is that Gibson doesn't make this just an action movie; it is also a statement about society. One thing I like is how minor details are brought back later on in important ways--it really hits home Gibson's message about fate and destiny. It was really cool to see Jaguar Paw "become" a jaguar and also change from being the hunted to the hunter.

Well, I went in thinking it would be an epic story, but it turned out to be a simple action movie (albeit a very good one). A lot of situations seemed to go on too long, although individual scenes worked extremely well. The camerawork and editing overall were somewhat unimpressive and uninspired, but there were several key shots that were just stunning (for example, when the priest holds up the heart in front of the crowd after the first sacrifice). Also, Gibson had this strange fascination with slowing down the video in the most bizarre of places, which made for a really jarring effect sometimes. Taken as a whole, though, this is a fantastic action movie and highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0472043/

Mysterious Skin (2004)

4/5

This movie is first and foremost incredibly gay, but that is just the necessary backdrop for an emotional journey into the lives of two tormented youths. The editing often faded from one boy's face/body to the other's to give the impression that they were somehow connected, if not the same. Yet they both react to the same situation in two vastly different ways, one with ignorance and the other with embrace. I may have slightly "ruined" the ending, but I don't think what happened was really a mystery; it's merely the end of a journey of self-discovery, which is really the heart of the film. And this journey is expressed vividly by amazing acting all around.

Being so exquisitely and flamboyantly gay, it limits its message to a very specialized audience. While the movie was effective, I wasn't quite sure what its point was with a lot of scenes. It seemed like there was a gratuitous amount of unnecessarily explicit sexual encounters for the sake of either making you disgusted or depressed at the depth of depravity in our society. Some characters, like some scenes, didn't really have points and were just there to change up the scenery. The editing was extremely artsy and made the movie feel pretentious, which took away from the feeling of the story being realistic and raw. Even so, I think it's an extremely well-made movie, but definitely not for everyone's palate.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0370986/

Monsieur Verdoux (1947)

4.9/5

Charlie Chaplin's movie are always sublimely entertaining from start to finish, and Monsieur Verdoux is no different. It is, however, extremely different in style from his silent comedies. There's no real body humor to speak of, which is certainly Chaplin's strongest aspect. But who would've thought that the silent master was also so adept with words? The wit in this movie shines--it is on the same level as Kind Hearts and Coronets. The plots are also very similar, but being a Chaplin movie, Verdoux has an important message as well: the world is tumbling downhill, but a little kindness can make it all seem worth it. The two most important scenes arise from the same plot device, the first being one of the most tender, delicate scenes of emotion I've seen in any movie, the second being the most side-splittingly hilarious scene I've seen in a long time. The way Chaplin is able to pull this off with such ease in the same movie is a testament to his ability as a filmmaker.

It starts off a little wobbly; it just sort of sets the stage without really being very funny. The movie also feels a little bit jumpy, moving from one story to the next in a sometimes erratic fashion. M. Verdoux's real family is introduced somewhat suddenly and ignored almost equally abruptly. To be more nitpicky, it was a bit bizarre to see Chaplin with a French mustache instead of his signature stubby one, but I thought it worked well and was incredibly funny. It was also a little off-putting to see so little physical humor in a Chaplin movie, and not something you'd expect, but Chaplin is able to make the change with style and panache, and is equally able to ensure that you don't regret it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0039631/

The Man Who Would Be King (1975)

4/5

The Man Who Would Be King is a rousing adventure movie, one of the few in the genre. It was able to be serious and funny, epic and personal, adventurous and thought-provoking. There is some real emotion on screen because the acting by all parties was excellent. Huston's direction (The Maltese Falcon, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre) was equally impressive. Some of the shot compositions were just unreal. I really liked how the plot fit together so well; seemingly minor details were brought back later on in big ways.

It does feel a bit dated, with oversaturated colors and bizarre language. The vernacular is somewhat off-putting at first, but you slowly get used to it and it helps put the entire picture in a different world. The music chimed in at weird places sometimes, or it felt like it wasn't the right mood. Sometimes the editing was a bit too blunt. As an adventure movie, it must inevitably be compared to Indiana Jones and, unfortunately, I don't think it's nearly as good, but it's still a really entertaining movie!

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0073341/

Lucky Number Slevin (2006)

3/5

Lucky Number Slevin is, all things considered, a pretty entertaining movie. It's very fun, clever, and exciting, with an incredibly well-thought out twist at the end to make you sit up and pay attention. Unfortunately, because it's set up that way, it probably doesn't have a very good replay value. The twists at the end got a bit too ludicrous to be believable, and certainly unnecessary. And in explaining every minutiae of plot twists, the pacing suffers. It is especially exasperating when you've already figured out half of it, but they spend five minutes explaining anyway. The action was almost nonexistent; where present, it was obscured by bad editing techniques and flashy special effects. The camerawork was absolutely atrocious, which probably was one reason the editing was so jarring and gimmicky. While the idea was good, the script itself was pretty terrible; other than a snicker here or there, it was entirely bland and self-indulgent. But all in all, the movie is supposed to be a gangster/con movie, and it pulls it off pretty well.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0425210/

Central Station (1998)

4/5

What I like most about Central Station is that it has the courage to be realistic instead of sappy and commercial. The heroine is an unattractive, unmarried woman who's gotten used to making a quick buck learning about peoples' lives and deluding herself into thinking she has the power to decide their fates. (She writes letters for people, but sometimes doesn't mail them.) She changes over the course of the movie, but not all at once, and not without making mistakes and falling back a few steps every once in a while. And that's really what this entire story is about, to me; the evolution of this one woman. What I think elevates the movie is that there is this much depth given to one or two other characters as well, so multiple people on multiple viewings can extract multiple meanings from it and be touched by it in different ways.

The music was usually very effective, but had a tendency to be incredibly overbearing and misplaced, which spelled melodrama (although thankfully the rest of the movie did not succumb to such misspelling). The cinematography was also quite good, although again had a tendency to be too "Hollywood." Sometimes it seemed as if the film wandered or took a while to find its place, but all in all it was exceptional emotional filmmaking.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0140888/

Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring (2003)

4/5

I really enjoyed this movie. It's very simple and thought-provoking. There is almost no dialogue because there doesn't need to be; it's an ideology and doesn't need to be grounded in a certain time or place with certain characters saying certain words. One thing I love about movies is a cyclic nature, or ending in the same place where you begin, except with a completely different understanding of that same situation. That is the essence of this movie and something that completely held me to the movie from beginning to end. I didn't look at it from a religious perspective, which is perhaps the manner in which its creator intended it to be viewed. However, by looking at it solely in terms of Buddhism, one may inadvertently ignore some meanings that go beyond original intent, just as viewing it sans religion may have inhibited a different interpretation that the director desired.

There are some slow parts, but it doesn't drag on for too long; it's always at the very least a little interesting. They had a beautiful location and pretty much did nothing about it. How can you forgive them for it? They had the opportunity to make this the prettiest movie ever and just wasted it with simple shot compositions, bland colors, and uninsightful editing. The acting, what little there was, was nothing to write home about. Its meaning is somewhat lost due to the exclusivity of content; there are many times I felt I was missing out on some subtle but incredibly meaningful actions that could only be understood by someone raised in Korean or Buddhist cultures. However, it could be a positive, since it opened my mind up to countless possibilities of meaning that actually helped overall. The message is where this movie shines, and for its ability to express its theme so pragmatically yet leave a firm grasp on that theme elusive, I give it four stars.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0374546/

Come and See (1985)

2/5

This movie is absolutely terrible, and what makes it worse is that it's so long. But worse than its length is the poor editing, which makes it feel even longer than it actually is! You look at each scene and wonder why it lasted so long. There are pretty much no lighting setups, so the movie looks incredibly low quality and almost documentary. Except it's not, a fact made obvious by the melodramatic overacting, propagandist narrative, and artsy camerawork. So many straight-on closeups of bad acting, so many long tracking shots of people running; they detract from both the content and the craft. Heinous.

The concept was interesting, and specific scenes showed the German atrocities against Russian towns very effectively. The end was mesmerizing, but I'm not really sure what its point was. This entire movie has far too much confidence in itself considering the final product. These are the only reasons I'm not giving this movie one star.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0091251/

The Crow (1994)

2/5

I had high hopes for this movie. I like Alex Proyas (Dark City and I, Robot) and I wanted to see how Bruce Lee's son turned out. Unfortunately, the movie was terrible. The acting on all parts was so contrived, it was painful to hear the actors talk. In fact, I cherished the moments of action, not because they were good (there were in fact not good), but because it meant there was no more bad acting. At least for the time being. The dialogue was utterly lacking--it was merely a means to tell the story without images. The music, which may have been good stand-alone, was heinous when used in the movie. And the thing with the guitar didn't work at all.

Even though most of it is terrible, there are some absolutely amazing shots in this movie. Some shots are so cool, so pretty, and so well-carried out that's it shocking to see them in the same movie as the crappy dialogue, acting, and music. The pacing worked really well; it was never boring per se, just bad. Also, the movie was surprisingly gritty, graphic, and violent, which actually worked really well for the environment it attempted to show. Overall, not recommended.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0109506/

Halloween (1978)

3/5

I was really excited going into this movie because I absolutely loved Carpenter's remake of The Thing. Halloween is a great horror movie, but I was a bit disappointed because it wasn't as good as The Thing. One genius aspect to Carpenter's direction was his use of music; he used it to build up tension when nothing tense was going on and took it away when something exciting started happening. He achieved a constant tension, in a sense, where you're always on the edge of your seat; the fear doesn't come in bursts like modern slasher flicks. Also, there's a lot of subtle shot composition and good ideas; unfortunately, most of the time they are just self-indulgent filmmaking to the point of hurting the overall movie.

It still feels like a late 70's movie because of the dialogue and fashion--it's not timeless, as I was hoping it would be. And it never actually scared me. I just watched it and said, oh, wow, that's cool. The slow pacing sometimes doesn't achieve its goal of building tension and you realize that what you're watching is just really really boring. The murder in the beginning started off as a really great and ballsy idea, but as it went on and on, it ceased to serve its function and actually hindered your appreciation of it. Which is a shame, 'cause it really was an awesome idea.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0077651/

Borat (2006)

4/5

Borat is one of the flat-out funniest movies I have ever seen. I was laughing the entire time. Almost every scene is one of those memorable ones that you can recall when this movie is brought up in conversation. What separates Borat from all the other "dumb" comedies to come out since time immemorial is that the funniest parts aren't scripted. He interviews people to get their (ludicrous) opinions, and these people and their viewpoints are real. It's horrifying to realize what kind of people live in our country. On a side note, the movie is extremely well-edited; no joke goes on for too long.

There are some disgusting, disgusting parts--even though you laugh, you somehow simultaneously recoil in horror. There is a grotesque amount of penis in this movie. Also, I felt the movie lose a bit of steam in the second half (when the plot came back), but it returned in full force not too long afterwards. Another thing: it's somewhat disappointing to find out that some stuff was staged and not real.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0443453/

The Rules of the Game (1939)

5/5

This movie is a testament to films as a legitimate form of art. The abundance of content in this film is overwhelming; every single aspect of life is covered from the lower classes to high society (and the surprising parallels between them), from truth and identity to lies and mistaken identity, from fate to chance. Fully and completely. And in only 110 minutes. Yet it flows smoothly from scene to scene; nothing is rushed or lingered on. The acting by all characters was flawless in all respects; the subtle mannerisms precisely understated, the outrageous flamboyancy perfectly sensational. The shot composition, like the movie's content, is so simple superficially, but incredibly complex beneath the surface. The use of depth of field and background action is mesmerizing and ever-present. Every single scene is so accurately shot and technically breathtaking, but the camerawork is so airy and light that it feels completely natural, even dreamlike.

The depth of thematic material is ridiculous, strengthened by matching cinematic qualities. There is this idea hovering around throughout the film of Christine being trapped in her social class. The rules that govern her behavior are like prison bars, almost zoo-like in nature. This theme is demonstrated with Christine's final lines: "People are watching." Though the movie is incredibly funny throughout, this ending is remarkably sad in its quiet acquiescence to society's inescapable rules. Ironically, the moment when she had the chance to be the most free, she was behind the bars of a greenhouse and mistaken as another woman entirely.

Having so much ground to cover, the film gets a bit talky. I didn't mind though, because it would be like finding more gold in a gold mine and complaining that it was too heavy to carry. If I were forced to choose one film to hold the title of the best movie of all time, The Rules of the Game would be it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0031885/

The Fountain (2006)

4.9/5

The Fountain is first and foremost a journey, intellectually, emotionally, and thematically. There is a surprisingly seamless quality to the film, as every scene and setting shares the same hues and composition. And the compositions (basically every single shot) are absolutely breathtaking in beauty. Aronofsky has created an amazing theoretical experience, one that is difficult to comprehend. Despite that, it is extremely confident in itself--it does not dumb itself down for the audience to better understand. This confidence carries the movie; if made by a weaker director, it wouldn't have worked. He gives it some unknown, ethereal quality that makes me love it. Hugh Jackman's acting was powerfully real and heartfelt, made stronger by the emotive music.

The problems arose as a result of some of the best aspects of the movie. Its abstract nature and faith in the audience's intellect made any possibility of immediate understanding difficult. It will take a lot of time and thought to perform even a partial analysis. The beautiful shot compositions were a bit jarring, because Aronofsky didn't take into account transitional shots that would smooth out the flow. These weren't necessary evils; they could have easily been prevented had Aronofsky simply thought about them. Even so, these faults were relatively small.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0414993/

Electric Shadows (2004)

4/5

Electric Shadows is like the Chinese Cinema Paradiso, but worse in every way. It feels more constructed and less real, more one-dimensional and less robust, and more senselessly sad without being as powerful. This movie is really good, but it's already been done before, and better. Except I think this movie has one thing that Cinema Paradiso does not have--a vastly different location, which allows for a completely different world to be immersed in. The director uses it to his full advantage at every possible moment. Fields of shiny white flowers, windy sand dunes, cobbled streets and tiled roofs, and inimitable Asian faces: the cut terrain of the aged and the porcelain curves of the youth. The shot compositions are mesmerizing. It's a completely different, refreshing, and vibrant experience.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0424273/

Stranger Than Fiction (2006)

4/5

Stranger Than Fiction is one of those ambitious movies that tries to be every kind of movie imaginable. It's a romance-comedy-drama that's happy and sad and happy again with an impossible storyline treated in a strictly realistic manner. It manages to be emotional and meaningful without being sappy. It manages to be sad and touching without being depressing. It manages to be hilarious without being outlandish. It succeeds on almost every front, but it never really exceeds in any of them. It would never stand out amongst any movie that is solely romance or solely comedy or solely drama. Where this movie did exceed in was the acting and directing. Will Ferrell gives without a doubt his best performance here: quirky, cute, and lovable. I love Marc Forster movies because he always manages to elevate the script beyond the words and truly make it into a film.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0420223/

Say Anything (1989)

3/5

This movie is the essence of clichéd romantic comedy. It is pure formula. But saying that means that it got everything right; it achieved exactly what it set out to do. In that is the compliment that it works so well; everything meshes as it's supposed to. Except the beginning. It starts off looking like a teen comedy, so you're not really sure what you're getting into. The movie put me on the brink of the emotion that the characters were feeling, but it never made me feel it. The acting was acceptable. I actually really like Cameron Crowe movies, and I can see in this one he's just beginning to hone his craft, and for that I appreciated this movie.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0098258/

Casino Royale (2006)

4/5

I was expecting this Bond movie to be particularly good, since they usually are when they cast a new actor to play Bond, but I was let down. Don't get me wrong; it's not bad, it's just not as good as it should have been. It seemed to follow the trend of humanizing superhero characters as in the two Spiderman movies and Batman Begins, which took away from the Bond we know and love and have grown up with. Why are there no gadgets in this movie? The music was a heavy-handed attempt at being emotive, which just made it ludicrously melodramatic in some places, and mediocre at best in others. It was much too long--its ending felt longer than the ending(s) for the Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Yes, all 13 of them.

The action in the beginning was amazing. Absolutely flawless. The women are unbelievably sexy and the cars are stunning. The pacing up until the finale is surprisingly well done, and Campbell is able to switch moods effortlessly. The acting is phenomenal, something you don't usually see in a Bond flick. It's a real treat to see Bond's transformation from the very beginning to the very end of the movie. It's definitely a good addition to the Bond lineage, I just don't know if I like the direction it's going.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0381061/

Babel (2006)

4.9/5

This is one of the most richly tapestried movies to show up in theaters this year, in plot, acting, and theme. The emotions, as in every Iñárritu movie, are explosive. Iñárritu really lets his actors give it their all. Layers upon layers of themes run rampant throughout, the main one being: miscommunication causes tragedy (à la Camus's famous Le Malentendu). But when that tragedy strikes, sadness is universal, heard loud and clear through silence. The story of the Japanese girl seems particularly out of place given the rest of the movie's plot, but it is only superficially so. Not only does it fit the main theme to a T, it also generates so many other themes (baring body vs. soul, being unable to hear vs. being unable to understand, distance and proximity, family and strangers, redemption and forgiveness, and many more) that I can see why Iñárritu decided to use it. By the way, the music is phenomenal. Its companion use with silence is so utterly devastating and haunting.

This movie is definitely not for everyone. It's an intense viewing experience and difficult to dissect; but such analysis is utterly necessary after watching this movie. Many will forgo trying to understand some parts and simply discard what made them uncomfortable because it's easier that way. Scenes often extend past their utility, forcing the viewer to question its meaning. That is not, however, an excuse for bad editing and overlong scenes, which Babel is not without. The coincidences and chain reactions sometime seem too constructed and planned for, a guilt similarly structured movies (like Crash) share. A lot of people are going to come into this movie expecting something similar to Crash; they are going to be very disappointed. Babel is hard to digest; its message isn't cookie-cutter simple and superficial or obvious. But for those it reaches, it's magnificent.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0449467/

Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)

4/5

First off, the acting in this movie by Marlene Dietrich, Maximilian Schell, and Burt Lancaster is unforgettable. The dialogue in the script is spot-on; sensational when need be, understated at other times. The ending is phenomenal, and utterly uncompromising in its verdict. The power is amplified by the uncertainty and moral ambiguity present up until the finale. It could get surprisingly emotional and devastatingly powerful at times. It grips you from the start and never lets you go, even after the screen blackens.

Stanley Kramer doesn't know how to direct worth crap. The camera movements and shot composition were so ludicrous, unnatural, and just plain ugly, it distracted tremendously from the most impressive components (story and acting). Although, by setting practically the entire movie in a courtroom, he set himself up for disaster. He had two options: either create artificial camera movements or use extremely stale, stationary shots. He unfortunately chose the former, but even if he had chosen the latter, it wouldn't have been much better because the editing was terrible. On that note, it's unnecessarily long; nothing is gained by the extraneous scenes that neither flesh out characters nor progress the plot. Also, repetition to ensure understanding of the theme is, as I've always stated, insulting to the viewers. Luckily, it doesn't occur very often. But when it does happen, it's especially heinous and cringe-inducing. For example, some minor characters were introduced for the sole purpose of bluntly reiterating a point that had already been made subtly. Speaking of characters, some were dealt with extremely poorly (forgotten or introduced at the very end), especially in comparison to the main ones. Others were extremely stereotyped and not really fleshed out at all (Richard Widmark's characters, for example). But really, imagine how amazing the rest of this movie must be for me to be able to look past all those negatives and still give it a four; I highly recommend this movie.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0055031/

Harold and Maude (1971)

2/5

I don't know what it is about movies I've been seeing recently that just have the most bizarre, eccentric characters ever; sorry, it's just no longer believable to me. The cinematography is trapped in the 70's; heinous zooms, porn lighting, and strange cuts. It tries to emulate the style of The Graduate (but fails, obviously) in its style of humor (subtle, yet serious), relationships between people (young man, older woman), and soundtrack (being entirely composed of one artist). This movie is just, well, odd. Also, its ending is extremely unsatisfying and easily predictable.

There were some funny and also heartwarming moments. It's definitely better if someone is watching it with you (someone came in and saw the last half with me and it was much funnier). I wouldn't really recommend this movie, but I would recommend Hal Ashby's Being There; it's funnier, richer thematically and cinematically, and even deals with some of the same subject matter.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0067185/

Branded to Kill (1967)

2/5

Branded to Kill is just about the craziest, most nonsensical movie I have ever seen. Every second of it is confusing, from the first frame to the last. The editing is piss-poor. Half the shots you can't tell what's going on because the lighting is practically nonexistent. Has Suzuki ever heard of a "master shot"? Has he ever heard of characterization? Does he even know what a movie is?

Seijun Suzuki seems very much to me like the Japanese Ed Wood, only with a much much better eye for composition and camerawork. This movie has some of the most jaw-dropping shots you will ever see. And it's pretty hilarious, in a sort of exploitation way. His gratuitous use of female nudity and violence (an optometrist pops a man's eye out and takes it to his sink, only to be shot by an assassin from a floor below through the sink's drainage pipe) is so ludicrous that it makes the movie hysterical. So all in all, it was a pretty fun movie with some astounding shots, just not anything else. Not anything.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0061882/

Au Hasard Balthazar (1966)

1/5

Wow. This is perhaps the most disappointing movie I have ever seen. I desperately wanted to like it; I thought it would be a masterpiece. It was like anticipating The Godfather and getting The Hot Chick. This is the first time in a long time, maybe even ever, that I felt like walking out of the theater halfway through.

The acting, as in all Bresson movies, is completely flat. The dialogue is there merely to get from one place to the next. Reviewers have called this movie a staggering emotional masterpiece, but I cannot feel emotion for characters I am completely separated from. This separation is a direct result of Bresson's desire for "austere," "pure" images. The music was bare yet melodramatic in its usage, blatantly attempting to evoke emotion that the actors were not allowed to generate. Bresson decided not to explain any character's motivations, perhaps hoping the audience would chalk it up to human nature and how people sometimes act illogically; this decision made the movie not only confusing, but also insulting to the viewer.

I found absolutely no redeeming qualities in this movie. It was a complete and utter waste of 95 minutes of my life.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0060138/

Sexy Beast (2000)

2/5

Sexy Beast is an intriguing film for many reasons. It is brave stylistically, its characters are off-the-wall, and the plot construction is bizarre. These three elements only work half the time; the other half you're left confused. The actors give it their all, though, and Ben Kingsley gives an entirely frightening performance. You laugh and shiver at the same time. It's quite possibly the darkest comedy I've ever seen (although not exactly the most effective one). There are numerous audio problems throughout. The tension often deflates for no real reason; the scene just ends. For a crime movie, there is surprisingly little crime. It spends too much time attempting to make its characters unique to the point that they become caricatures.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0203119/

Pickpocket (1959)

2/5

How is it possible that Bresson can make the best and the worst films alternatively? Diary of a Country Priest was terrible, A Man Escaped was amazing, and now we're back to terrible with Pickpocket. I hope Au Hasard Balthazar will be a return to amazing.

As in all his other movies, the actors are emotionless bags of flesh announcing words. It was impossible to watch the dialogue and/or "acting" without cringing. This separates the viewer from the characters and the movie becomes unengaging and therefore boring, no matter what's going on on the screen. If something is even going on on the screen: half the time the camera lingers on nothingness when people enter or leave. The plot was flat and ineffective; it seemed as if everything was planned in order to fit the mold of the overarching theme.

There are only two things I really liked about this movie. The first was a philosophy put to words early on in the movie. Responding to Michel's idea that thieves could be good, a police chief says that it would turn the whole world upside down. Michel responds, "The world is already upside down. This could set it right." In a sense, that was the theme of the entire movie: the reversal of expectations. The second was a scene lasting around five minutes where Michel and two accomplices pickpocket about 30 people on a train. It was an orgy of cool.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0053168/

Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959)

1/5

This movie is terrible, from beginning to end. Every word and every action is just plain bad. A group of people walk out from a cardboard church that is attached to a wall and is too small for them to exit standing straight. The tombstones in the graveyard are cardboard as well, wobbling and falling over when people pass by. You can see the strings on the alien flying saucers. Half of the scenes are shot in front of a white wall. The archival b footage doesn't match up with the scenes shot for this movie. Bela Lugosi is there for about one second, where he picks up a rose and it falls out of his hands. After that, another person plays his character. The dialogue is cheesy and blunt. Also, it makes no sense.

The only way to enjoy this movie is drunk. Although I think that's a positive for alcohol, not the movie. Here is my favorite line: "In my land, women are for advancing the race, not for fighting men's battles." Here is the line I laughed the most at: "Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!"

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0052077/

Fallen (1998)

3/5

This movie has some really good elements. The dialogue is witty, oftentimes laugh-out-loud hilarious, and the twist on the narration at the end is ridiculously clever (and without a doubt my favorite part of the entire movie). There are scenes that stand out, like when the demon chases the woman by touching people nearby, or the first confrontation between the demon and Denzel Washington's character.

The acting, music, and cinematography were acceptable, but not exceptional. The characterization was pitiful if not nonexistent. A lot of the plot was hackneyed and/or easy to predict, so the thriller aspect of this movie lost its impact. I felt it lost a lot of steam near the ending, so it was just tedious waiting for the ending. Many people thought the ending was kind of cheap (I don't have too much of a problem with it). But overall, the cool scenes, the twist on narrative, the witty dialogue; it's just not enough to make this movie interesting enough to recommend.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0119099/

A Man Escaped (1956)

4.9/5

This movie is the essence of an escape movie. It has some of the most nail-biting tension put to film (thanks in part to the relatively bare soundtrack). It has stripped all the excess and fat off of it (such as a background story and characterization) in order to focus solely on the details of the escape. The shot composition is pretty incredible (made more impressive with long tracking shots).

It would be a pretty terrible movie if you can't get into it, since the entire movie is basically details and nothing else. You just need to know what you're getting into. Lucky for me, I was enveloped from the second it started.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0049902/

Diary of a Country Priest (1951)

2/5

I say this with absolute frankness; this movie is pretty boring. It tells the story of a priest coming to a parish in the countryside and being treated with animosity by the villagers. Its almost ascetic filmmaking and "purified" images didn't do anything for me. The dialogue and message could be interesting at times, but for the most part it just dragged on and tried too hard to get a message across while still being subtle about what the message was. I prefer Bergman for my dose of filmic religion and philosophy; also his shot compositions are far superior to those in this movie. So what does this movie really have to offer? I would probably not recommend this movie to anyone.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0042619/

The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)

4.9/5

The Last Temptation of Christ is a powerful fictional account of the human nature of Jesus; his wants, his fears, and his temptations. The music was amazing, and an absolutely perfect fit from start to finish. The most cinematically lush scenes I found were when the camera rapidly and unexpectedly went over the edge of a cliff, the aggregation of followers in the desert, and the raising of the cross. (I know there are many more that I'm ignoring.) Though there were numerous stunning images and ideas presented (not the least of which being the titular final temptation), I personally found the most powerful one to be the possibility that even without Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection, Paul still spreads the gospel exactly the same as if that had taken place. Did Jesus need to die if we believe it all anyway? The other striking feature of this movie is the mesmerizing and sympathetic image of Judas that is painted. He is a man who makes arguably the bigger sacrifices by agreeing to betray Jesus so that Jesus could die and save mankind.

--"If you were me, could you betray your master?"
--"No. That is why I got the easier job. To be crucified."

I don't know what it was about it, but some of the filmmaking had a very 80's feel to it. The dialogue was a mix between natural speech and epic monologuing. Sometimes it flowed well from one to the other, but often it was a jarring disjunct that took me away from the movie. There seemed to be some unnecessary slow parts and some flashy but ultimately empty scenes. It also seems as if Scorsese went out of his way to show the inhabitants of the gospels as dirtier, more violent, and more extremist for the sole purpose of challenging your Sunday school interpretations. The subject matter limits the audience to the devout but questioning Christian, and the length limits the audience even further to only the most interested. But if you fit within that very select group, you will find an astounding film to watch, analyze, and remember.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0095497/

La Haine (1995)

4.9/5

La Haine is stunning, creative, artistic, beautiful, predictive, bleak, uncompromising, and provocative. The crisp black and white cinematography provides both a documentary feel and brings an intangible beauty to the roughness of the urban underbelly. The shot composition was masterful, the camera movement emotive. There is one shot that compares with Citizen Kane in its magic. The camera peers over Vincent's shoulder as he looks at himself in the mirror, then it continues moving forward over his shoulder until it's a straight-on close-up on his face. In the mirror. But where is the camera? This is just one aspect of the scene. I didn't even mention that he was quoting De Niro's Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver, the cinematic definition of self-destructive, repetitive behavior leading to explosive violence. In so doing, Kassovitz not only fleshes out the character, but also questions the influence of both America and cinema (both of which are revisited later on) on the ubiquitous hate and violence in the film. There is great depth and meaning in such a superficially simple scene.

The messages in the movie were told from a unique perspective as metaphors or stories, which added to their weight because it made you stop and think. This movie asks a lot of bleak questions and answers many of them in the unfortunate affirmative. The story of the man falling down a 50-story building: As he passes each floor, he keeps telling himself, "So far, so good. So far, so good." But it's not the fall that matters. It's how you land. So, like Travis Bickle, the aggressive, rebellious youth continue their repetitive, self-destructive habits. But it's fine, 'cause they're still alive. But it's not the fall that matters. It's how they land. And eventually, they will land. Hate pushes against hate, but it's all good until it explodes. "Do you believe in God? That's the wrong question. Does God believe in us?" Are we capable of redemption, grace, and forgiveness? Or does hate just breed more hate? Unfortunately, Kassovitz thinks it's the latter. This movie is powerful and meaningful, but without hope.

Some scenes felt repetitive or drawn out. Even though I loved Kassovitz's central message and the metaphor of the falling man, its presence was a bit excessive and almost overbearing. The editing occasionally vexed me, but only slightly.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0113247/

Sherlock Jr. (1924)

4.9/5

There are two giants of silent comedy, Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton. I have always been a Chaplin fan. I tried out Keaton's The General, but didn't like it at all. So I wasn't very excited going into Sherlock Jr. But this 44 minute movie packs more entertainment into it than a modern two hour movie. I was smiling the entire time. I love watching silent comedies because their timing is always perfect. Each scenario is stretched out to its full potential, but is never drawn out past its limit. To encounter something that's actually just perfect is a rare treat and a real breath of fresh air. Keaton's inventiveness is ceaseless. I would say that the concentration of cleverness in this movie surpasses even Chaplin's best. But what makes Sherlock Jr. really stand out for me is that it's so much more than just a comedy. It's a message.

It seems like the theme at the beginning of the movie--in doing two things at once, you don't do justice to either--sort of loses its meaning in the name of comedy. Chaplin's comedies, on the other hand, flowed around his central theme. The moral center never felt tacked on as an afterthought, which is one reason they are so timeless. This is not to say that Sherlock Jr. isn't timeless, just that its central theme is less powerful. But in leaving its central theme behind, Sherlock Jr. allows itself to explore other themes as well, specifically the relationship the audience has with the movies. What does it mean to be a part of a movie, and what can we learn from the movies? Sometimes we shouldn't do everything they tell us to do. For a movie to end by posing the question that maybe the movies aren't always perfect, that maybe they move too fast or conflict with our feelings of right and wrong; that can only be done by someone with a deep understanding of and a true love for the medium. This movie is a very special gem.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0015324/

Breaking the Waves (1996)

4/5

Breaking the Waves has the potential to be an extremely powerful, extremely emotional piece, if you get into it. The mood is difficult to get into because of its faded colors, handheld camerawork, and overly depressing plot. Maybe for me it just appears to try too hard to mean something, when it easily doesn't have to. The biggest problem I had was with Emily Watson's Bess, who was actually just crazy. It is hard to believe in a drama without a protagonist you can sympathize with. Also, there is some unnecessary and gratuitous sex and nudity. It seems like much of the plot gets its power strictly from the disturbing sex acts that occur. Some scenes last much too long or are just completely worthless, contributing to the overly long running time. I also really disliked the editing style.

Its length (150 min) can seem to be a factor, but von Trier has parceled the movie into eight chapters, which makes watching it much more manageable. The chapter separators have colorful scenic vistas with pop music as backdrops, which makes a surprisingly significant positive difference in watching the rest of the movie. There is a striking allegory of Bess as Jesus in her unconditional love, her suffering, her sacrifice, and her healing. Some of the dialogue is undeniably well-written and the acting is captivating. This is a violently emotional movie regardless of any imperfections it has. But it strives to be more than that; it approaches art.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0115751/

The Departed (2006)

5/5

I just came back from seeing The Departed with Jed, Sameer, and Amar. This movie is phenomenal. It is a return to the genre the great master reinvented. I had ridiculously high expectations for this movie, and they were surpassed. It has the flash and fun of GoodFellas and Casino mixed in with the intensity and subtlety of Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. This is the zenith of entertainment in art. This is why you watch movies.

First off, the characters are the most unique, off-the-wall screen presences I can remember. The acting is so absolutely amazing that they are actually able to pull this off. The colors, style, and subtlety pervaded every shot and scene that to list off each memorable part of the movie would be to describe every second of it. The script is consistently funny, the violence sudden and shocking, and the subtext omnipresent. Watch it if you want to enjoy a good time, or if you want to analyze it as cinematic art. Just watch it.

The introductory scenes were so bizarre; it looked like an abundance of b footage spliced together randomly. I feel like Scorsese didn't really have a vision for how he wanted the beginning to look. I might be wrong though. And after the first ten minutes, I was so absorbed in the movie that I couldn't generate any more fictitious reasons like the one above to not love the movie. In fact, why am I writing this review and not seeing it again?

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0407887/

Rififi (1955)

4/5

Unlike Dassin's previous film Night and the City, Rififi is a crime movie and not a film noir. It has many noir elements that work in synchrony so well, but what makes this movie stand out is its 30 minute long heist scene with neither dialogue nor music. It is 30 minutes of pure, nail-biting tension. This single scene inspired all future heist scenes. The cinematography and editing was miles ahead of Night and the City, thankfully. The characters were fascinatingly unique. Dassin has somehow perfected the art of cinematic finales. He has complete control over you; you can't blink or turn away for a second.

There really aren't that many negatives. Personally I liked Night and the City more, but that is probably just because film noir is my favorite genre. Some characters were left behind and ignored. Some background stories were alluded to but never fleshed out, which just made it confusing. But seriously, these are extremely small qualms. If you add the attention-grabbing introduction to the thrilling heist scene and the captivating finale, what you have is a movie that is impossible to lose interest in from start to finish.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0048021/

Night and the City (1950)

4/5

Night and the City is a thrilling film noir, with an especially tense finale. All the main characters get what's coming to them in proper noir fashion. There were some sensationally powerful moments and some surprisingly emotional ones. The plot/content was perfectly, precisely, definitively noir and nothing else. It was mesmerizing to watch the world this man had worked to build through theft and deceit and sleaze slowly crumble around him. All the pieces literally fell into place to create one of the saddest noir endings I've seen.

It takes a little while to get into the rhythm of the piece. The cinematography was either out of place or just plain ugly the entire time, except for the extremely well-done chase at the end. The editing was also bizarre. The wrestling scene near the end, while gripping, was an example of poor cinematography and worse editing. The characters, while unique and well-formed when taken in the context of noir, are a little too unique for my tastes--it takes a while to get used to them. I especially couldn't stand the main character's laugh. The dialogue is bland except for two extremely well-done lines. Their rarity perhaps make them feel more precious and meaningful than they are. I forget one of them already, but here is the other.

--You don't know what you're getting into.
--I know what I'm getting out of.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0042788/

Hollywoodland (2006)

3/5

I saw this with my mom and brother tonight. Let me just say that this is not a film noir (or neo-noir), which is what I was expecting going in. Don't get me wrong; it tries to be with its hard-boiled style and sometimes clever dialogue, but the images are too perky, Adrien Brody is immensely unconvincing as the tough-as-nails detective, and the plot is just too simple. What this movie is, is a murder mystery set in the 50's. It reminded me of Michael Crichton's book Airframe because the main character just goes back and forth between theories of what "actually happened," except in this movie the murder is never solved. The method of flashback used is so conventional that it became jarring because it took me away from the 50's setting of film noirs. The movie can't really decide whose story it wants to tell: the detective who loses sight of morals and family or George Reeves and the mystery surrounding his death. So it tries to tell both but fails to quench your thirst for either. The recurring side characters were worthless. Utterly. The feeble attempts at giving the characters backstories by referencing one unique feature felt like something learned as a requirement in a scriptwriting class.

Even so, this movie is mesmerizing, which I think it takes partly from the true mystery surrounding Reeves' death. Despite what I said about leaving the theater knowing as much as when you went in, I like the fact that the director doesn't impose his own point of view on you. Despite the flashbacks, I found the directing to be surprisingly competent. He really respects the audience's intelligence and maturity levels. There were some really nice transitions and artistic flourishes that elevated this into a film instead of just a script. I can't really say I recommend it to either the film noir crowd, the cinema as art crowd, or the murder mystery crowd as it doesn't particularly excel in any of those facets. But it's a worthy attempt.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0427969/

The Brothers Grimm (2005)

3/5

Terry Gilliam's movies are always a pleasure to watch; they are visually appealing and inventive. The Brothers Grimm, while not very coherent or cohesive, is tons of fun. It has entertainment, laughs, thrills, and Gilliam's beautiful shots. I really like how all of the Grimm stories were incorporated, although they were incorporated in the most random and nonsensical manner. Which brings me to the negatives. This movie makes absolutely no sense. You will not be able to understand what is going on half the time. If you like Gilliam, though, you might want to check this out.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0355295/

The Illusionist (2006)

3/5

I saw The Illusionist with Sameer and my brother last night and was very entertained by it. However, I did have some complaints. It builds itself off of one big mystery. The rest of the movie is relatively pointless in that you could have seen the movie without the other parts and left the theater feeling exactly the same. There is no point to watching it more than once; the mystery is solved and that's about all this movie has to offer. Also, magic tricks in a movie just aren't that exciting. I especially disliked the use of in media res (starting in the middle of the action and then explaining how you got to that point). It didn't actually serve any purpose and merely justified sloppy (technique-wise) voiceover narration.

The "big mystery" itself was really refreshing and intriguing; I found myself guessing and just not finding the answer. Acting by Ed Norton and Paul Giamatti was superb as always, but they didn't particularly stand out in their roles for this movie compared to other projects they've done. Jessica Biel was mediocre; neither laudable nor laughable. The cinematography was pretty good, but I was vexed by Burger's choice of some queer angles. One thing I really like seeing was Paul Giamatti's teeth when he solves the big mystery. That almost made me happier than finally having the mystery solved.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0443543/

The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (2005)

2/5

This is a pretty boring movie. The worst part is that it tricks you into thinking you're seeing a good movie because of its meditative pace. Scenes last so long, you ask yourself, Am I missing something? Nope, that's all there is. I wonder if it is Guillermo Arriaga who writes the script in flashback-mode or just Tommy Lee Jones' interpretation of it, but the nonlinear storyline really did not help the movie at all; it only hindered our understanding of it and took away from the power of the plot. The same thing happened in 21 Grams (also written by Arriaga). There seems to be something manipulative about introducing the past only after it is mentioned in the present instead of already having it shown and having the audience remember it. It's like baby-feeding and so the audience doesn't feel involved in or attached to the movie. In addition, there were a lot of unanswered questions that arose because of either curious/bizarre acting or unexplained plot twists. The plot wasn't very compelling and the end was neither sensational nor redemptive; it just stopped. In my eyes, this movie was all the bad stuff that didn't make the cut for Amores Perros and 21 Grams.

I liked the characters and how almost all of them were fleshed out by being involved in the plot after being introduced as side characters (like in The Station Agent, but not done as well). Some of the dialogue was pretty good, but I know that Guillermo Arriaga can do much much better. Some of the cinematography was absolutely mesmerizing, but that also took away from the story because it focused on the landscapes for too long.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419294/

Ordinary Decent Criminal (2000)

4/5

Ordinary Decent Criminal is a very entertaining crime flick. Kevin Spacey plays a gangster who is also a family man. The characters are all pretty unique and interesting, and Spacey's acting is surprisingly distinct from his other roles. The movie takes on a Heat-esque theme as a cop takes on the job of tracking him down, finally resorting to the same tactics Spacey's character used. There are some very clever heist scenes that make you want to be a criminal yourself because of how fun it looks. It leaves you with the feeling, why didn't I think of that? I could be a millionaire by now.

The negatives. I thought a lot of the music choices were odd and didn't fit the mood very well. Also, the accents take a little while to get used to. Some of the dialogue and plot had nothing to do with the overall movie, even though they had the potential to make it very interesting. It's not particularly ground-breaking or innovative as far as crime movies go, but what it does, it does well. So, some unexplored avenues, some heavy accents, and some awkward music. Otherwise, a very entertaining, very clever movie that I would recommend if you like Kevin Spacey or Irish accents.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0160611/

The Station Agent (2003)

4/5

The Station Agent is a movie that's easy to dislike. It's a slice of life movie about a lonely dwarf who enjoys his solitude. But somehow the movie managed to engage me at all the right moments. I was just about to lose interest when something different and unconventional happened. The writing and acting in this movie is phenomenal; the characters are fully fleshed-out and three-dimensional. I especially liked how side characters came back repeatedly, but in a different light from how they were introduced. Also, the music made the movie. If it weren't for the original score, I quite possibly might have hated this movie.

I thought some of the scenes tried much too hard to accomplish their goal. For example, when the woman almost runs over the dwarf the second time; when the dwarf yells in the bar for everyone to look at him; and when he falls on the train tracks and feels like killing himself. Some scenes just weren't that believable and feel scripted (really obvious because of the otherwise stellar script). Another thing: there is an incredibly powerful and emotional moment when he must walk away in shame and embarrassment from protecting a girl because his size prevents him from helping. But the movie doesn't fully explore this moment and the feeling just sort of dips off and dies. All things considered, though, I really enjoyed this movie. It's not exactly slow and it's not exactly boring, but you probably won't like it if you can't stand slow, boring movies. It's hard to tell, and it varies from person to person. But if you like slice of life stories, you might want to give this a try.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0340377/

Snakes on a Plane (2006)

4/5

Finally, a movie that respects its audience! It fulfills and perhaps even surpasses all of its target viewer's expectations; it has thrills, it has laughs, it has boobs, it has cheesy lines, it even has "snakes on crack." Consistently. From start to finish. It's incredible. See it immediately, while people who are excited to see it are still watching it in theaters. This may be one of the only movies I've seen to live up to its hype.

The nachos I spent $7.30 on were bland. The fake leather seats were crappy. The girls behind me were annoying. Other than that, great movie. But this is the kind of movie where you can't separate the film from the experience, so I feel justified in mentioning these as negatives. And even though I'm never gonna see this again, I recommend you see it!

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0417148/

Rocky (1976)

4.9/5

Rocky is an amazing movie. It somehow retains its inspirational power after thirty years of cheap imitation attempts. This movie sidesteps the cliches it started because it's so much more than a sports movie or an underdog story, which is the only element the knock-offs and clones try to emulate. But Rocky also portrays a personal drama dealing with family troubles that manages to be uplifting without saccharine sentimentality. It is a hilarious and true-to-life foray into personalities and characters that the audience is rarely exposed to. Stylistically and thematically, it is a pretty dark movie throughout; the end is, however, a poignant and touching experience that will not be forgot.

Onto the negatives. I thought that pretty much every scene involving Apollo Creed was farcical and took away from the natural realism of the movie. Also, it started off a bit awkward and meandered for a while, but in the end it made its point perfectly.

You should watch this movie. And you should watch it with a group of people who love it or are excited to see it. I saw it with Kyle at the National Mall for DC's Screen on the Green, a free summer film series showing on a 60 foot screen on Monday nights starting at dusk. (Rocky was the last screening this year.) The electricity in the air was unparalleled in any movie theater I've been in and the cheers from the crowd would send your heart racing with excitement. It was quite an experience and it truly enhanced the movie in ways I could not replicate on my own.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0075148/

V for Vendetta (2005)

2/5

This movie is very talky. And bad. I wanted action; instead I got a deified ideology that I disagreed with bashed into my head with blunt filmmaking techniques. Movies are blunt because they disrespect their audience by assuming their level of intellect is so low that they are simply unable to "get the message" and have to be treated like children and have it repeated for them it in as many different ways as possible. That is precisely what this movie does for 130 minutes, and the philosophy is so radical, I don't know who would even agree with it in the first place.

I guess the style and look of the film is pretty good. Also, the little action there was wasn't bad, although it wasn't very thrilling either. I really cannot recommend any aspect of this movie to anyone.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0434409/