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/