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/