Kicking and Screaming (1995)

3/5

Kicking and Screaming follows a group of friends during and following their college graduation. It unsurprisingly strikes a personal chord with me, and I felt very close to the characters and their situation. It managed to be emotional without being melodramatic, sentimental without being saccharine, hilarious without being ludicrous. I liked the low-key, realistic acting and down-to-earth yet poetic writing. I especially liked the open ending and thought it was the right move. The cinematography is so-so, the editing below average. It took me a while to realize that some events were taking place in the past, which was terribly confusing. All in all, an excellent movie to watch when you're nostalgic for the end of college.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0113537/

Happy Together (1997)

1/5

The worst part about boring movies is that even the short ones are way too long. Take, for example, Wong Kar Wai's Happy Together. Its 90-minute running time should have been shortened to somewhere around 0 minutes. That's what a good editor would have done, anyway. The plot follows a gay couple's love-hate relationship, and the movie successfully examines nothing new or interesting about homosexuality or relationships. The problem is that it thinks it does, and so it lingers on the tepid and banal. The egregious error that is the visual "style" is worthless and painful on the eyes, only serving to disrupt our attention from the story, characters, and message. I've seen good gay movies, good relationship movies, and good Wong Kar Wai movies. This is not any of them. It is instead a failure. Of everything.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0118845/

Forbidden Planet (1956)

4/5

Forbidden Planet is a 1956 sci-fi movie that clearly has more ambition than the special effects of the time could provide. But like the original King Kong, the confidence in the idea and filmmaking manages to surpass the cheesy set design, costuming, and effects. The plot concerns a crew sent to the planet Altair-4 to investigate an expedition sent 20 years prior. Yes, most of what you actually see is pretty laughable. And the acting is pretty theatrical. But look past that and you will see an incredibly thoughtful, provocative essay on mankind's hubris in a perfectly believable future. The pacing was a bit slow at first, but it accelerated quite well. I really was not a fan of the music, or the "electronic tonalities," as they're credited. It's definitely high up on my list of classic sci-fi movie for the thinking man and goes highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0049223/

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

4/5

Sweeney Todd is yet another uniquely comic tale of the macabre from Tim Burton. And this time it's a musical! The plot follows Sweeney Todd in Victorian England as he seeks revenge on Judge Turpin for viciously sentencing him to prison and stealing his wife and daughter. The first thirty minutes were inexorably boring backstory that revealed nothing that wasn't in the two minute trailer. So why make it thirty minutes in the movie? (And I was less than underwhelmed by the ugly, "bad CGI" intro credits.) But I can forgive all that because the ending was absolutely amazing. It spiraled out of control while simultaneously tightening both the characters and story. It was Dickensian in the most perfect way possible.

The songs were a mixed bag for me. I was in awe at the beauty of "Epiphany" and the orchestral pieces, I loved the hilarious "By the Sea" and "A Little Priest," but the rest merely disappointed me. I found most of the singing acceptable but not exceptional, save for the young Ed Sanders's remarkable voice. (His acting could use some work though.) What Gretel brought to my attention is the fact that the singing is really well integrated with the speaking. It's a truly seamless and fluid transition. The acting and character development of the leads (Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter) were terrific, but I found most of the secondary characters to be rather flat and uninspired. Thanks to superb make-up, costuming, and set design, the trademark Burton look is brilliant--especially in comparison to the Broadway musical. All in all, a thrilling and exciting movie that I wouldn't mind seeing again. Highly recommended for Burton fans.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0408236/

La Jetée (1962)

5/5

I take back what I said about The Hire: Powder Keg. At 28 minutes, La Jetée is my favorite short film of all time. The images are indelible, the experience unforgettable. Like Sans Soleil, it is a meditation on time and memory, but a much more poignant and effective one. The plot follows a prisoner in the aftermath of WWIII who is used for time travel experiments. Edited together using still images from the footage, Marker uses motion itself as a representation of time. There is one break from the exclusive use of stills, and the instant we see time start to flow, it is ripped away from us. We are left with the question, is it only a dream?

The black and white cinematography is simultaneously beautiful and tragic thanks to masterful compositions. The story is made more powerful through an expert choice of music. There was very little acting to speak of in the traditional sense, but the timing in the editing and the shot choices managed to be just as evocative as any acting could be. There was only one real problem I had with the movie, and that was the people of the future. They looked preposterous; why not just make them look like us? They are, thankfully, in the movie for a very brief period of time and do not distract too heavily from the beauty in the rest of the film. This is a movie you will remember for many years to come.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0056119/

Sans Soleil (1983)

3/5

Chris Marker's Sans Soleil, Sunless in English, is a unique fusion of doc, travelogue, and philosophy journal. The best I can do to describe it is call it a meditation on time and memory. The writing was sometimes poetic and thought-provoking, but mostly obfuscatory. What made it more difficult to follow was the lack of a central plot or story. Which made the pacing terrible. The editing overall was relatively poor. However, the cinematography was absolutely breathtaking. There is a scene involving the shooting of a giraffe that was truly captivating. Overall, it's hard to recommend to anyone except for those searching for an alternative, nontraditional outlook or world view.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0084628/

Mississippi Mermaid (1969)

3/5

Mississippi Mermaid started out with an interesting premise, and from there it spiraled out of control. It was wholly unpredictable and for the most part better than I expected. I came in not knowing what it was about and found the experience to be quite engaging as a result, so I don't want to ruin the plot if anyone decides they want to see it. However, the story sometimes strayed into banality and boredom. Due to sub-par editing, nearly every single shot and scene went on for far longer than it needed to. I really liked the acting, but thought the script's dialogue was for the most part quite uninteresting. The cinematography actually surprised me; its quality is far superior to the rest of the technical aspects involved in this movie. I thought the music itself was fitting, but because of how the film was edited together, the music seemed off all the time. It kept me interested throughout, so if you're into Truffaut, this one might interest you.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0064990/

Stolen Kisses (1968)

4/5

Despite the hatred I spewed after seeing Fahrenheit 451 and The Soft Skin, Truffaut's Stolen Kisses is actually a really entertaining film. What makes those crappy movies different from this one is the mood and the purpose. Instead of taking on serious subject matter, he has fun in Stolen Kisses. It's very reminiscent of Godard's Breathless in that you can see the director enjoying everything he's doing. I thought the pacing and the development of story and characters were exquisite. Loose ends were tied up (or at least explained) more so than I expected out of a Truffaut movie, which made it an extremely pleasant experience overall. I really liked the ending, and thought it was a great foreshadowing of the future Doinel series, where love is not so much a transitory fling but a long-lasting emotion. Hopefully Truffaut will carry that philosophy over into his future Doinel movies.

There are some startling cuts and amateurish cinematography, but overall they don't mar the film too much. The joy is infectious and totally blinds the viewer from these flaws. Highly recommended for anyone looking for a fun romp through young love and all its errors and successes.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0062695/

The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)

4/5

Paul Greengrass's The Bourne Ultimatum is riveting. Not only does it have some of the most tense action scenes put to film, but it has them one after another with almost no lag time. The editing is simply stunning. Not a single wasted frame. While I despised the over-the-top shakiness in the second movie, this movie's less obtrusive, more muted camerawork was actually quite effective at making it realistic and thrilling. Probably because you could still tell what was going on. What made this movie stand out from your typical action fare was its political and thematic underpinnings. While it focuses most obviously on the dichotomy between following orders and making your own decisions, it also delves into modern American politics unapologetically. My favorite line in the movie was by Strathairn: "Don't second-guess an operation from an armchair."

I didn't really like the intro at all. It did nothing to serve the story and its lack of any explanation simply made its inclusion unnecessary. Additionally, some of my enjoyment was slightly marred by the terrible smile by Julia Stiles in the next to final frames. And for some reason Jason Bourne is superhumanly strong and incapable of being injured. But if you like action, you need to see this movie. Now. It truly is the best action movie of the year.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0440963/

1408 (2007)

2/5

Note: This is a review of the director's cut, but I doubt the theatrical version is any better.

The supernatural horror movie 1408, based on a short story by Stephen King, has quite possibly the worst pacing I've seen in a single movie. There are about 5 endings, each more ridiculous than the previous ones, with the first starting about 30 minutes before the movie actually ends. Yeah. The last 4 endings and 29 minutes are excruciating. The plot follows John Cusack as Mike Enslin, an unappreciated author of "non-fiction" horror novels who makes it his mission to spend the night in supposed haunted hotel rooms and write about how scary they are. The trailer would have us believe that he does this because of his dead daughter and lack of faith in God, however, it is never explained. (I have been informed by the trustworthy IMDb forum posters that the movie is very different from the original story. For starters, there is no ex-wife and dead daughter.) There are additional unexplained motivations and side stories, but they don't make the movie any better.

What is good about the movie is the cinematography. The editing, on the other hand, totally ruins it. It is so rapid-fire that it's too jarring to pay attention to anything. And all the good shots are shown for a split second. I can't say much about the acting because I didn't really pay attention to it, but I will say that most of the dialogue is the opposite of realistic. I did like the mood created throughout the film, but it's just not enough to make the movie good. Oh. And also, it's too long. Don't bother with it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0450385/

Juno (2007)

5/5

Jason Reitman's Juno is the story of a precocious sixteen year old girl who accidentally gets pregnant and decides to give her baby up for adoption. This bittersweet comedy-drama glosses over some harsher realities of the scenario, but what movie doesn't omit aspects it feels are irrelevant to its purpose? This movie leaves out the more obvious, more serious tangents of unplanned pregnancies so it can transcend the specific situation and focus on more universal themes. It deals with love in an uncertain world, growing up and staying young, wanting what we don't have, and having what we don't want. There are no bad guys, only mistakes and regret. And second chances. And that's life.

Ellen Page's Juno is a marvel to behold. Even so, Reitman understands that this story is about more than just one girl, and so he allows all of the characters to breathe and fully develop. Every single one is perfectly offbeat. The complexity and depth and pathos the actors infuse their characters with is absolutely spellbinding. They are given a tender script and truly make the most of it. The editing is impeccably precise, both in terms of comedic timing as well as plot progression and pacing. No joke or scene is lingered on too long. The music is essential to the feel of the movie, and exists almost as another character in the story. Think of it as an omniscient narrator of emotions.

I was a bit disappointed by the cinematography. There was nothing wrong with it, but it just seemed like a step down compared with Thank You for Smoking. Also, I could've done with less voice-over narration and more Rainn Wilson. But honestly, these are not legitimate complaints because they only exist when people look for them so they can put something in the "cons" paragraph of their review.

This movie is a whirlwind experience of emotions; you have to sit and wait a couple minutes after the credits start rolling to fully appreciate what you've just seen. Even now, a day after seeing it, I can't get it out of my mind. Next to It's A Wonderful Life, this is the closest I can remember coming to crying out of pure happiness. For celluloid to lift your spirits to the rafters, what more could you ask for in a movie?

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0467406/

Night on Earth (1991)

4.9/5

Night on Earth is a darkly comic drama about five taxi rides occurring simultaneously around the world--in LA, New York, Paris, Rome, and Helsinki. It is about chance encounters and the personal connections we make on a human level. It is about the humor in life, and the sadness. The first time I saw this movie, the ending absolutely floored me. This time, I can see the build-up, the gradual integration of the funny and the sobering, and still it hit me hard. I see this movie and I think, this is life. This is an accurate depiction of what humanity is capable of, in all our glory and our shame.

Despite its rather limited setup, the compositions still seem fresh and beautiful. I don't know how Jarmusch did it, but everything looks good and feels right. The writing was pitch-perfect and the acting matched. Unfortunately, the editing seemed off to me. For some reason, it lingered way too much. And it kept breaking the tension by cutting to external shots of the cabs going through the cities. Watching it again, it didn't seem as hilarious as I first remembered, although it was more touching. I cherish this movie, and highly recommend it to anyone who gets the opportunity to see it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0102536/

Fahrenheit 451 (1966)

1/5

In Truffaut's bizarre vision of Ray Bradbury's dystopian novel Fahrenheit 451, Guy Montag is German. I presume it's because they got a German actor and for no other reason. This futuristic world is not so much futuristic as it is impossible. They've created a new salute and handshake for the movie, which look ridiculous. They drive a fire truck that looks like a toy and they can slide up the fire pole. Technically, it's a mess, with obtrusive editing, garish colors, preposterous dialogue, and hammy acting! Which all make it so severely dated. This movie is the epitome of all that is ludicrous. Which makes it hilarious, in the same way Plan 9 from Outer Space is hilarious.

To be fair, it did look much better than the movies Truffaut made before this one. There were actually some pretty impressive shots. The filmmaking techniques are much more traditional than they usually are, which makes the movie easier to watch. Also, the story itself draws you in and keeps you interested. It's a shame that it starts off with such insane details that distract from Bradbury's brilliant story. Despite these relatively scattered positives, you just can't ignore how bad the rest of the movie is. Don't waste your time.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0060390/

The Soft Skin (1964)

1/5

The Soft Skin is a simple story of a man unfaithful to his wife. It is boring, unoriginal, and tepid. Not only in terms of the plot, but also the cinematography, editing, music, dialogue, acting, and directing. Some of the work is just plain shoddy and amateurish. The rest can best be described as salvageable. Save for one sensual scene and a finale that deceives you into thinking it is heart-pounding due to the trite events that preceded it, there is no reason anyone needs to watch this.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0058458/

The Fly (1986)

4/5

The Fly is a horror drama with special effects reminiscent of John Carpenter's The Thing. Jeff Goldblum believably plays a scientist who has recently perfected a teleportation device. When a fly gets trapped in the machine with him as he teleports himself, the two combine on a "molecular-genetic" level. Over the course of the movie, he undergoes a metamorphosis. This change is so fluid and gradual that it effortlessly draws you in. Unfortunately, the characters don't develop as well as the story does. They seem like symbols and metaphors that the plot can alter at will in order to get an important thematic message across.

This movie succeeds in most technical areas. The editing (on a shot-by-shot level) was much, much tighter than in his later Eastern Promises, which helped this movie seem real instead of staged. The special effects were well-envisioned and well-executed, starting subtly and mushrooming at the climactic finale. There were some nice camera movements, although none of the compositions really stood out as being anything more than adequate. I really did not like the lighting, and thought most of the movie was much darker than it should have been. All things considered, this movie is a solid four, but is only recommended for true film fans and not casual viewers.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0091064/

Superbad (2007)

3/5

Superbad is about two best friends trying to get laid at a big high school party before they graduate and go off to different colleges. I don't really know why it's called Superbad, since it's quite good. It's a funny movie, no doubt about that. I'm just disappointed after seeing the much more mature 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up. Mature in terms of character depth and story development. It seemed to me that those movies had a central emotional and thematic core around which the rest of the movie took place. Not so here; it really is as shallow as the plot outline I described above sounds. Additionally, 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up were much more grounded in reality. But Superbad was so utterly ridiculous. It started off with people talking and being angry and hilarious, which I loved, but quickly deteriorated to the most ludicrous situations you can imagine. I got more and more dejected as the movie went on. But it is so funny. If you like to laugh, watch this movie. Seriously. It is amazing. And I had no idea penis drawings could be so hilarious.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0829482/

Michael Clayton (2007)

4/5

Michael Clayton follows the title character as he attempts to clean up the biggest legal mess of his career when the lead defense counsel in a huge class action lawsuit stops taking his medicine and starts revealing secrets. If it sounds confusing now, wait until you see the movie. Going in knowing the basic plot, it took me more than half the running time to figure out who the characters were and who they represented. It reminded me a lot of Syriana, where even though things were happening on screen, I didn't really understand what was going on. People always talk to each other with subtleties I don't catch, skirting around the issues and hinting at ulterior motives.

But about halfway through, it all just clicked. And I was hooked. This is actually one of the rare movies where I appreciated the use of in media res. The written dialogue was amazing, and the stunning performances by the actors made the somewhat literary words seem real and natural. The music was integral to building up the suspense in a rather talk-heavy movie and went much appreciated. I thought the editing and plotline could have used a little work, as it seems that some events were added in to introduce suspense without an actual reason for their presence. There was nothing wrong with the cinematography, but nothing terrific about it either.

I missed a huge thing that Sameer brought to my attention, which really elevated the movie for me. There is one scene where Michael Clayton is holding an envelope containing a check in one hand and a memo containing evidence against his parent law firm in the other, almost weighing the two. It's a striking image and particularly moving at a later scene where he talks about selling out his friend. This is a movie I want to see again, because I know I missed a lot. I highly recommend it if you are interested in movies involving legal matters, power plays, and experts doing what they do best. Just don't expect an action suspense thriller.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0465538/

Bee Movie (2007)

4/5

Bee Movie is hilarious! Seinfeld's post-Seinfeld stuff has been excruciatingly disappointing, but this movie is exceptional. Though there was nothing stunning about the animation (as there was in Ratatouille), it did take advantage of CGI to create an awe-inspiring and fully-envisioned bee world. The story, while predictable, still managed to be unique and innovative. I knew how everything would turn out, but I had no idea what crazy adventures would happen along the way. This was also somewhat of a detriment, as the movie kept plodding along after the main storyline came to a close and re-opened again two more times. The jokes were fast-paced, but sometimes the funniest ones were muttered to the side instead of boasted with confidence. All in all, I'm glad Jerry Seinfeld made this movie, because it restored my faith in his abilities as a comedian. And it was a lot of fun. Highly recommended if you like Seinfeld.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0389790/

Jarhead (2005)

4.9/5

Sam Mendes's Jarhead adapts Anthony Swofford's memoirs of his time in the Marines during the Gulf War. Yet it isn't really a war movie; it transcends simple genre descriptions. It constantly transforms itself from sharp humor to brutal violence, from the boredom of waiting to the tension of war, from the whitest sands to the reddest fires. These transitions are fluid, organic--a microcosm of how our lives and emotions are tossed around by events beyond our control. It is a film that must be felt to be truly appreciated.

This movie stands apart from others on its technical merits. The acting is realistic, the editing precise, special effects seamless. The cinematography by long-time Coens-collaborator Roger Deakins is constantly breathtaking--he manages to make the desert mesmerizing. The gritty, ultracontrasty look, combined with the hand-held camerawork, gave the movie a sense of realism. The musical choices and placement elevated it into evocative poetry though, which made the movie a much fuller experience. Another reason I love this movie is because it shows the director's evolution and expansion to take full advantage of the medium of film. His first movie after directing plays was American Beauty, and since then he has moved to more and more cinematic movies like Road to Perdition and now Jarhead.

While rewatching it, I noticed some parts I forgot were there, points in time that seemed less necessary, scenes that were looser and floppier. The editing wasn't as tight as I remembered. Other than that, though, I can think of no major points against this movie. It is beautiful, powerful, and meaningful. Do not pass this up.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0418763/

Grizzly Man (2005)

4/5

Grizzly Man took me by surprise. I came in thinking I wouldn't like it, as I had seen Herzog's much-acclaimed Aguirre, the Wrath of God and was not a big fan. But this movie blew me away. Though the two films share central themes of a man's quest for the impossible and eventual downfall, I was moved far more by this one. It was so unexpected, for some reason, when I realized that this movie was about Timothy Treadwell, not living with wild grizzly bears. It was a character study masquerading as a documentary of his life and death. That epiphany held me much closer to the story and had me on the edge of my seat, eager to learn more of this fascinating human being.

Usually I hate crappy, hand-held DV footage, but I was actually very impressed with the quality of footage that Treadwell had. I know the camera he was using and know that there's no way it could look that good on the big screen. Herzog must have manipulated it in some way, because it flowed seamlessly with the other footage. The editing and voice-over narration were a bit jarring at first, but really elevated the movie above a typical doc and made me appreciate the story much more. I have a ton of respect for Herzog after seeing this movie.

There is one big complaint I have with the movie, and that is its ending. I really wish it had ended five minutes sooner, on the close-up of the bear's eyes. Herzog's voice-over narration at that point was a perfect encapsulation of the movie and it's unfortunate (for me, I suppose) that it is not its final shot. There are also more minor gripes. I disliked how they used the coroner to tell the story of Treadwell's death. It distanced me. Perhaps it was the right choice, but I can't help but feel a bit gypped. I disliked how at the end, the movie seemed to focus more on the details of his death, the final tape, etc. I liked when it was about him and not the sensational spectacle and mystery of his death. Still, this is a powerful film with an important message that can touch us all and I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0427312/

Thank You for Smoking (2005)

5/5

Thank You for Smoking is, quite frankly, amazing. It is one of the few comedies I've seen that I think can be considered a film and not just entertainment. What separates it from its comic contemporaries is that it's made with a love for the craft of filmmaking. There is a desire to fill every frame with beauty, to tell the story and jokes through moving pictures instead of words, to go above and beyond merely adequate and take full advantage of all the medium has to offer. The plot centers on Nick Naylor, spokesperson for big tobacco, as he fights lobbyists who want to put an image of skull and crossbones on cigarette packs. But that is not what the movie is about. It is about him being a father, raising a child who looks up to him like he's God. It is about argument, communication, and language. It is about people who change and people who don't; it is about coming to terms with one's purpose.

Every character is fully realized, thanks to excellent writing, casting, directing, and most importantly acting. And everyone is hilarious. I never found myself wishing the "funny" people would be on screen more, because they were all funny. The editing is incredible. Nothing is lingered on, our interest is piqued at every second, and the comic timing is flawless. The character and plot development unfold with ease and the most pristine pacing I've seen in a comedy since Charlie Chaplin. CGI is used subtly to accentuate the humor already there without drawing attention to itself. The dialogue is spot-on. Every joke hits with unerring precision. The camerawork and compositions are truly breathtaking, more evocative than most movies and on par with the best. Every single technical aspect is there in full force. And it is a fulfilling film, a satisfying one. After you stop laughing, you realize you learned something important, you gained more than just a quick euphoric feeling. You witnessed art.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0427944/

The Virgin Spring (1960)

4/5

The Virgin Spring deals with some difficult issues behind faith and the human condition. It puts under its lens guilt and grief, innocence and vengeance, and shifts them to reveal aspects I had never considered before. The plot is simple yet powerful, the dialogue uncluttered yet effective. Bergman let his images do the talking. He visually represents dualities of good and evil and right and wrong (in nature, in men, even in God) by juxtaposing light with darkness. The relatively bare soundtrack and extended use of silence had multiple effects; it made intense scenes more tense and emotional ones more potent. (Although the silence also drove me nuts, as I will expound on in the second paragraph.) I loved the cinematography and the acting, although sometimes found it straying into melodramatic overacting at times.

Several things bugged me. My biggest complaint is in sound design--it is absolutely atrocious. It was so frustrating that it constantly took me out of the story. Half the time you wouldn't be able to hear things that you'd normally be able to hear, like people running around, or a rock being dropped on the ground. I understand his use of silence on an intellectual, thematic level, but it hindered my ability to get involved with the story and characters at an emotional, visceral level, something that detracted heavily from my appreciation of the film. Also, I wasn't too impressed with the bare set design and simple editing. Another gripe is that the first half hour or so went on too long. To me, it seemed like pointless filler. Still, this film is essential Bergman. To anyone unaccustomed to his work, get accustomed to it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0053976/

Last Tango in Paris (1972)

2/5

Last Tango in Paris is something of a bizarre movie to me. The plot follows Marlon Brando as Paul, a recent widower after his wife's unexpected suicide, and Maria Schneider as Jeanne, a young girl in Paris. They randomly meet in an apartment up for rent, have rough sex bordering on rape, and agree to continue seeing each other without ever knowing the other's name or past. I'll be the first to admit that I don't "understand" this film, although I consider it a fault of the film and not myself. It was too impenetrable; it was as if it didn't want to say what it was about and purposely stayed away from revealing its meaning. Why?

Another thing about the movie I didn't understand was the prevalent nudity and sex. Usually I don't mind it when I see the purpose of keeping it in, but I saw no real reason for its gratuitous excess in this film. It certainly wasn't realism, because the compositions and camera movements were so set-up and planned that the movie as a whole didn't feel realistic in the first place--any realism by having a girl stand around naked was immediately lost and crossed the fine line from art into pornography.

Bertolucci has this amazing visual flair that I love to watch, but it just wasn't good enough to outweigh my distaste for the rest of the movie. The music was fantastic as well, although it came in and out at strange places and volumes. There were some very powerful moments in the movie, but they were few and far between and weakened by the meandering story. Really, I'm very disappointed with Bertolucci after this film. I don't recommend this to any but the most hardcore of Bertolucci fans.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0070849/

The Golden Compass (2007)

3/5

I read these books a while back and really liked them. I never fell in love with them like a fanboy, but I appreciated the depth of characters and mature content usually absent in "children's books." Those are almost precisely the things this movie lacked. It was a children's movie without the adult themes and complex characters. And yet somehow it managed to stay too faithful to the book. There was no adaptation involved; instead it compacted every single important event in the book and shoved it into this movie, which made everything seem forced and outright ridiculous. Moreover, the world they imagined was so different from what I had imagined. It was futuristic with blue balls of energy powering everything. What is that? When I read the book I imagined it was just London in present day. Another qualm is the CGI. I hated it. Filmmakers depend on it too much; it seems as if they don't even shoot anything anymore. It's just not believable.

But to be fair, I did find myself enjoying it a lot. The bear fight scene was awesome, and there were some parts that were really exciting. There's nothing really terrible about the movie, just frustrating. It's irritating when you see good material treated sloppily. Don't go out and see it if you can avoid it. Save yourself a whole lot of ire and just read (or re-read) the books.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0385752/

The Kite Runner (2007)

3/5

The Kite Runner, despite its rather specific tale of Afghan refugees, tells a universal story of humanity and friendship. It was an eye-opening experience for me, as the story contained elements I wasn't expecting and it took place in a country I knew relatively little about. There are some powerful moments, both visceral and emotional, throughout the film, and an especially shocking one towards the beginning. Much like Reign Over Me, it was an emotionally satisfying movie, if not a deeply complex one, but one that is easy to appreciate and feel touched by. he cinematography was incredible, as was the acting by Homayoun Ershadi as the father of the main character, who was believable in every aspect of being--and a very interesting character to boot!

However, all the rest of the acting I wasn't too big a fan of. The story was sometimes predictable, and a bit overlong, as it contained scenes with very little worth while more moving scenes were given short shrift. Much of the movie felt too literary, and it was also a bit confusing, as if an initial cut had voice-over and in the final cut they just took it out. I didn't like the kite flying special effects, mostly because I knew they were special effects, although they were really cool to watch. Overall, an entertaining and moving film, but definitely not one of Marc Forster's (or David Benioff's for that matter) best efforts.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0419887/

A Bronx Tale (1993)

3/5

A Bronx Tale tells the story of a bus driver (Robert De Niro) and his son Calogero in the Bronx in the 60's. After an incident early in his life, he is taken in and befriended by the local gangster (Chazz Palminteri), much to his father's dismay. The movie charts the history of the time period alongside the development of the characters. What I liked most about the movie was the progression of the story and the emotional depth of the characters. It was refreshing and new, for the most part, although sometimes it strayed into predictability.

Nothing about the movie stood out from a technical perspective. I didn't think the casting decisions were very well-founded; there are vastly better young actors than the ones in this movie. The acting was below average for everyone except De Niro and Palminteri, where it was only slightly above average and not the best of their careers. The writing, by Palminteri, was rather simplistic and included unceasing, unnecessary voice-over. I wasn't too impressed with De Niro's directing, but I can appreciate this movie for his personal investment in the subject matter. Overall, I wouldn't suggest you go seek it out, but it's certainly not terrible.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0106489/

Paprika (2006)

3/5

Paprika is an eye-popping visual feat of a movie. It is breathtaking, it is wondrous, it just doesn't make any sense. To be fair, I went in too tired to give it my rapt attention. I dozed off every now and again. I admit that is was beautiful and inventive, but other than that, what did it have to offer? The plot was rather trite except for absolutely ludicrous claims like dreams and the internet being the same. There were moments of extreme hilarity, but they felt forced and out of place. I didn't really take much out of the movie. But it does encourage me that Japanese animation truly is reaching for the stars. If only there were a way to combine Japanese ambition with American storytelling, then we'd have a winner.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0851578/

Reign Over Me (2007)

4/5

Mike Binder's Reign Over Me is an emotionally satisfying if not deeply complex movie. The story follows the relationship between former college roommates Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle) and Charlie Fineman (in a surprisingly competent performance by Adam Sandler), a man whose life was turned upside down after his entire family died in the September 11 attacks. The story is simple, predictable, but heartfelt. The diverse panoply of characters was intriguing, but I felt it distracted too much from the emotional crux of the story. I really loved the music choices; they were effective without being overpowering. I especially loved BJ Novak's small role, although it was vastly overshadowed by Donald Sutherland's cameo. The cinematography was beautiful, but I hated the editing--too many fades that ruined the pacing and completely took me out of the movie. Even so, I suggest you check it out if you saw the trailer or a commercial or read this review and got interested in it; I doubt you'll be disappointed.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0490204/

Idiocracy (2006)

2/5

Idiocracy is a stupid and terrible movie. I don't know how I convinced myself to watch it. It envisions the future as literally the dumbest time period of man's evolution ever. And it succeeds. The story was predictable, the characters shallow, and the humor, unfortunately, at the level of the citizens in this "idiocracy." Why would I laugh at that? Despite the movie being terrible, I did like the vision of the future, where advertising is everywhere and stupid people who reproduce more take over the world. It's a much smarter premise than the movie can deliver on. Please don't ever watch this movie. Kyle, you are wrong. It is not funny--it is awful.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

No Country for Old Men (2007)

5/5

Watching this movie again, after contemplating it for half a year, I am struck by how much I remember. How every single scene in my memory matches perfectly what I was watching on screen today. Every frame is burned in my brain. The story allegedly focuses on a cowboy who, upon finding a stash of heroin and two million dollars in cash, is chased by a ruthless killer who will stop at nothing to retrieve the money. But to say that is what the movie is about is to deny it depth. It is not about a specific story set in a specific place and time, but about the darkness in man, the descent of society, and how we are helpless to prevent our own downfall. Aside from the pure thrill rush of seeing such a flawlessly-crafted movie, its insight into humanity will ensure its place in the annals of film history.

No Country for Old Men is the latest by the Coen brothers, who are known for their ability to remold every genre and inject humor into even the darkest of situations. The first time I saw this movie, I don't think I ever laughed. Or smiled. I was too scared to. In terms of suspense, this movie outshines even The Silence of the Lambs. But there are so many humorous moments to even out the bleak, soulless remainder of the movie. What the Coens have achieved is an atmosphere that is completely unique; they have put us in a world that is completely their own. We have no way of predicting what will happen next or how the movie will end because we have never set foot in a world quite like this one.

Technically, there is not a single misstep or error. Every composition and camera movement is accomplished with such purpose and precision. There is something tranquil and calming about the way they shoot the barren landscapes, terrifying and tense about the dark hotels and pooling blood. The editing is pristine, and its role extends past mere function into thematics. In the Coens' refusal to show certain events we consider essential, we realize the true essence of the movie. The acting by Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem is spot-on, but Tommy Lee Jones's portrayal of Ed Tom Bell is absolutely spellbinding. He quite literally becomes his character, emanating his very being without needing to speak a single line. A shift in his weight or a sluggish turn and we know more about him than any words could tell. That is not to say the dialogue is unnecessary--it is brilliant and profound, unnerving and unforgettable. At the end of this movie, you will sit there stunned. And you will remember it for a long time to come.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0477348/

The Good Shepherd (2006)

4/5

It's been awhile since I saw a movie where I didn't think about how I was going to write the review while I was still watching it. Or look at the time. This movie is engaging from the start, entrancing in every aspect. Loosely based on real events and real people during the 50's and 60's as the CIA was being formed, the plot sucks in the attentive viewer and keeps them breathless the entire time. It's been advertised as a spy thriller, but in reality it's a thinking man's drama. It is meditative. It asks questions and pretends no answers.

I was impressed by the acting (especially Matt Damon's morally ambiguous protagonist), although some characters seemed extraordinarily flat and poorly cast. (I was particularly disappointed at Robert De Niro's and Angelina Jolie's relatively limited screen time.) I found the pacing nearly flawless, although ironically it also felt like some scenes were pointless or shoddily constructed. Most of the dialogue was unnecessarily convoluted and deceptive, to the point where the audience loses track of what people say and mean or pretend to say and mean. Also, I thought there were a couple unexplained events and/or plot holes, whichever you want to call them. All these negative aspects seem to point towards it having a lower score, but the movie is more than the sum of its parts. It's truly an experience, and one not to be missed.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0343737/

Pierrot le fou (1965)

2/5

Wow. This movie makes absolutely no sense. At all. Well, I understood that there are two lovers on the run from arms dealers, but that's about it. Let me try to recreate the movie for you in equally abstract terms: a baby boy wearing a pink wedding dress vomits Legos on the ground as a German businessman walks by, causing him to trip and fall upwards into the sky. To me, it seems that Godard's motives have shifted. Instead of experimenting new ways to generate a coherent theme/emotion, he is experimenting for the sake of novelty. His decisions seem less like educated guesses and more like random shots in the dark. Perhaps this movie tries to bridge the gap between experimental and narrative film, but to me it doesn't succeed. Each is worsened by the other's presence. Additionally, it is technically subpar, as most of his films are. If I didn't know it was by Godard, I would be pointing out "mistake" after "mistake," which only goes to show how oblique his experimental techniques have gotten. Sound, editing, cinematography--all awful.

The only saving grace this movie has is its humor. Much like Family Guy, extremely unnecessary, inappropriate, outrageous scenes occur every so often that make you crack up. I don't even know how funny the scenes are; they're merely out of place. I suppose the movie is a necessity for Godard fans, but I have no idea why.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0059592/

Wordplay (2006)

3/5

I love crosswords, so I loved this movie. Despite all my bashings, which I will do throughout the course of this review, I enjoyed myself thoroughly and recommend it to anyone at all who enjoys a good crossword puzzle. It is funny and enlightening throughout, as it takes us into the perspective of the creator, the editor, and the solver. That being said, this movie has more than its fair share of flaws. First of all, it's shot in SD, not HD, so it looks terrible. Second, you can see the filmmakers scurrying around in the background setting up cameras for the final tournament; terribly distracting. So really, just terribly terrible technically. A couple of the stories and talks seemed extended or out of nowhere, as if just to fill time and make it feature length. The editing was subpar, as I could hear every audio cut from different takes/times, but the special effects were amazing, specifically the filling in of the spaces on the puzzle. Overall, very enjoyable but cinematically lacking (kind of like Karl Rove, I Love You, although that movie was better than this one).

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0492506/

Paris, je t'aime (2006)

4/5

Paris, je t'aime consists of 18 stories all set in Paris that discuss some form of love. Some of the films intermingle those two requirements, but a lot of them don't. Being a compilation of so many different filmmakers, naturally some will be better than others. This movie has its fair share of bad apples, but also good apples and amazing apples, which made the overall experience really enjoyable. My favorites were by the Coen brothers (Tuileries), Alfonso Cuaron (Parc Monceau), and Alexander Payne (14e arrondissement). Close seconds belong to Tom Tykwer (Faubourg Saint-Denis), Oliver Schmitz (Place des fêtes), Sylvain Chomet (Tour Eiffel), and Walter Salles (Loin du 16e). Most of the rest were decent, and some were merely adequate, but Christopher Doyle's Port de Choisy (Chinatown) stands as far and away my least favorite of them all. And this seems to be the consensus that most people come to after seeing the film, but the great thing about this movie is that there are so many different stories you're almost bound to love one and like most of the others. After you're done you get a wonderful patchwork of emotions and ideas about what Paris is like ... and what love is like. This is by far the best compilation work I've ever seen and is definitely worth a watch. Think of it as a good Love Actually.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0401711/

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007)

4/5

Julian Schnabel's The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is a remarkably moving piece. It details the true story of Elle editor Jean-Dominique Bauby, who suffered a stroke at 42 that resulted in locked-in syndrome. Fully conscious but only able to blink his left eye, he dictated a book that forms the basis for this movie.

The acting by all parties was stellar. The emotions Bauby goes through during the movie are fully realized, even though most of the movie is shown in first-person view and he cannot move or talk. Schnabel uses internal monologue to depict grief, anger, and even happiness at times. Though a somewhat depressing topic by nature, the consistent humor helps evolve Bauby's character and generate empathy. The cinematography was consistently crisp and beautiful and the editing allowed for a precise and measured pacing of events. The script was phenomenal as well, extremely touching and poignant.

However, there were some things about the movie I didn't really like. For example, there were a lot of random shots of nature. Though evocative, it made the movie seem more like a creative endeavor than a story about a man's incredible journey dealing with a terrible disease and for some reason I feel it does less justice to his struggle. Additionally, being told mostly in first-person made some parts both tedious and annoying. We were forced to go through the same things he went through, which can be quite taxing on an audience. (I was not a big fan of him waking up slightly drugged up.) Though it probably took him a lot longer than two minutes to form a sentence, having it exist as two minutes of the movie created boredom and disinterest in the audience instead of the frustration he must have experienced by being unable to speak. While I commend the idea of putting us in his shoes, I don't think it translated as well from concept to execution. Still, despite these minor hang-ups, the film is exceptional and well worth watching.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0401383/

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007)

3/5

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead is a flawlessly realized melodrama thriller, but the technical mastery Sidney Lumet has over the medium does not save the movie from its absolutely ridiculous story. It is about two brothers who need money; naturally they plot a robbery of their own parents' jewelry store. Something goes wrong, and the rest of the movie deals with the aftereffects of their grievous error in judgment. By the end of the movie, when everyone's life had spiraled wildly out of control and every character has made irreversible mistakes, I got up and left the theater in a hurry. Why? Because it was so spectacularly unbelievable. And I mean Snakes on a Plane unbelievable, accentuated even more so by the relative normalcy that preceded it. The characters morph from seemingly intelligent men to brainless psychopaths. These characters are not real; they are preposterous caricatures. I cannot fathom their thought processes or their motivations. But apparently other people could.

If you can deal with the single hang-up that I had about the movie (namely the poppycock masquerading as characters and plot), you will probably fall in love with it. Because the movie is technically brilliant. Sidney Lumet really is at a high point cinematically (albeit an extreme low point fictionally). The nonlinear storytelling was powerful, adding depth and tension to a rather simple story. It tantalizes you by giving you what you want in measured amounts, like a calculating drug dealer. I guess that's not a great analogy, but it works. The acting is awesome. They really make the insane characters seem insane. But seriously, the emotions on display were raw and real, and props go out to all the actors. I hope you see it if you find it interesting, because it seems I'm in the minority regarding my disbelief of characters and plot. Be your own judge.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0292963/

The Thing (1982)

4/5

John Carpenter's The Thing is an awesome horror movie, one of the few in the genre I truly enjoy watching. The story follows an alien life form that can imitate organisms that it kills, including the ten (approximately) men of an Antarctic research center. As the alien slowly kills the men one by one, you yourself feel the terror and uncertainty of the situation. You suspect everyone else of being the alien, out to kill you. The biggest praise I can give this movie is that it held me in its grip the entire time. My involvement in the plot and my psychological presence in the research station itself made it one of the scariest horror films I've ever seen. Some of the technical aspects of this film are equally fantastic. I loved the camera movements and shot compositions; hallway sequences were always incredibly well-choreographed and tense. The special effects and make-up were phenomenal. While not utterly convincing or realistic, they were very impressive in their own rights in concept/vision.

However, a lot of the acting and dialogue was excessively unrealistic and stylized. The colors were drab and a lot of shots felt really flat. I remember liking it so much more the first time I saw it, probably because I had no idea what I was getting involved in. It doesn't hold well on repeat viewings, I don't think. Also, the alien spaceship in the beginning was really gimmicky. And dated. In fact, much of the movie is dated--like the chess computer game, the cell simulation/prediction, and the special effects in general. Still, well worth watching.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0084787/

This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006)

3/5

Kirby Dick's This Film Is Not Yet Rated is an informative, entertaining, and hilarious look at the MPAA's controversial system of rating movies. Without standards or regulations, made up of secret members hired and fired by only one person, the shadowy 9-member MPAA rating board determines--seemingly willy-nilly--the audience's perceptions of a film before entering the theater, through its rating of G, PG, PG-13, R, or NC-17. The last of that list is the focus of this film, as an NC-17 rating can severely hinder the exposure of a film to even adult audiences since many theater chains will not show it, Blockbuster will not stock it, and Walmart will not sell it.

The film has three parts. The first is an explanation of the system, or rather the lack thereof. It consists mainly of interviews with filmmakers who have had their films rated NC-17 or were required to recut it so as not to receive that rating. These discussions were fascinating and enlightening. The second follows private investigators hired by Kirby Dick to discover who exactly the board members are. They succeed, and also find out the members of the appeals board. This was by far my least favorite part, with heinous footage, banal dialogue, and uninteresting occurrences wasting our time. If it weren't for the third part, I would say that this part should have been cut out completely. The third details Dick's run-in with the rating system regarding this film (which is rated NC-17 for its depiction of other NC-17 movies). It was by far the funniest part, although I did really enjoy the intro credits and explanation of what each rating would allow regarding language, sex, and violence. Dick's several phone interviews with the head of the board, Joan Groves, show her animated head moving in both recorded and re-enacted phone conversations. I was cracking up the entire time. Think of this movie as a Michael Moore-style documentary for movie fans, except with worse pacing, worse footage, worse editing, and less important topics.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0493459/

Lust, Caution (2007)

4/5

Ang Lee's Lust, Caution is a magnificent film. Set in Japanese-occupied Shanghai, the story follows a college girl thrust into espionage and deception as part of the resistance movement. She pretends to be Mak Tai Tai, wife of a wealthy importer/exporter, in order to get close to their enemy Mr. Yee. She soon becomes his mistress, and their graphic intercourse is the cause of this movie's NC-17 rating. Although explicit, it is not extraneous; its inclusion is integral to the story, the style, and the message.

This film is a technical marvel. Visually, it's a masterpiece. The lighting, camerawork, and set and costume design are all expertly achieved. Never has a movie looked this good since Road to Perdition. The fluid pacing and editing make this two and a half hour movie feel natural and comfortable, not overlong. The music was well-composed and well-chosen and the acting was fantastic. Newcomer Wei Tang does more than just stand her ground against screen veteran Tony Leung. This is all to say nothing of the exceptional direction by Ang Lee. This film presents a fuller exploration of the themes touched on in Brokeback Mountain: people's secret needs, hidden lives, and aberrant sexual desires deemed socially unacceptable. The sex scenes were necessary; subtle details flesh out the characters and overall thematics. By combining eroticism with suspense and violence, Lee both involves us and increases our pulse. The startling, unexpected murder midway through is on par with the one in Hitchcock's Torn Curtain. And the haunting final shot is the perfect way to end the film.

Still, I am unsure about several aspects of this movie. The choice to use in media res was an interesting one. While it hooked the viewer, it simultaneously confused them. It starts with a four-player mahjong game, and we have no idea who the main characters are and therefore who to pay attention to (not to mention that we later find out that the main character is actually a spy and therefore someone else entirely). The fact that they all looked the same didn't help either. I saw the beginning of the film again immediately after finishing it and am quite sure it would have helped had we known this information beforehand. (Although I don't think a purely chronological timeline would have worked either.) Also, many scenes went on slightly too long or meandered purposelessly. And I was hugely shocked to see typos and inconsistencies in the subtitling. On such a major feature film? Please. Even so, I think this is a fantastic film and well worth watching if it interests you.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0808357/

Ocean's Thirteen (2007)

4/5

Ocean's Thirteen is entertainment of the guiltiest form. Although far from an artistic endeavor, it keeps you hooked. You know what will happen, but you watch anyway because the ride is so much fun. With its wonderful tongue-in-cheek style, you can tell just how much the actors were enjoying themselves. The numerous self-references, movie references, and in-jokes prove this. (I am a sucker for Godfather references.) I think Soderbergh really hit home with the style. From the 60's credits to the wipes and zooms, it truly felt like the movies it stole from. The pacing worked exceptionally well and I loved how the stories interweaved. Ocean's Twelve unevenly favored a few characters while most of our favorites were imprisoned and helpless. Here we see everyone working their magic the way we first met them, in perfect synchrony and balance. In this movie, Soderbergh fixed all the mistakes present in Twelve. And Pacino is great as the bad guy. It's a fun movie, so check it out if you liked the others (or at least the first one).

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0496806/

La Femme Nikita (1990)

3/5

La Femme Nikita stars Anne Parillaud as a cop killer given a second chance at life as a government assassin. As you can guess, this is an action movie. But it's by Luc Besson, which means that it's one of the most bizarre action movies I've seen in a long time. Weird camera angles, editing that's just a bit off, and characters that are off-the-wall combine to form an interesting viewing experience, to say the least. But I found the action to be too excessive, the romance too bland, the plot too predictable, and the characterizations too unrealistic. It all didn't match up to form a cohesive whole. And yet it works. The unique story pulls you in and never lets you go. It had a strange attraction that forced me to keep watching, intrigued. The pacing was flawless. The imagery was startling, vivid, and memorable. And I absolutely loved the ending. Knowing that Jean Reno was in the movie, I kept waiting for him to appear. When he finally did, his little cameo didn't quite live up to my expectations. But his role was really cool. I guess that's what Luc Besson movies have to offer to me--cool little nuggets in weird action movies.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0100263/

Bringing Out The Dead (1999)

3/5

Bringing Out The Dead follows Frank Pierce, a paramedic in New York's Hell's Kitchen who hasn't saved anyone in several months and has become haunted by ghosts of those he lost, for three of the busiest days of the year. The cinematography is absolutely breathtaking. There is one extremely surreal sequence in wintertime, with snow falling upwards, that is almost too powerful. The visual imagery throughout was awe-inspiring. The editing was brilliant as well. The intro credit sequence was the best part about the movie, although it set my expectations impossibly high for the rest of the piece to follow. The music throughout was exceptional at setting and maintaining mood. Without the music, the movie would be a completely different experience--a much worse experience.

The exotic cast of characters, while played extremely well by more than capable actors, felt a bit too exaggerated for my tastes. (Also, every time I saw Marc Anthony on screen, I thought of Johnny Depp.) It seemed as if Scorsese didn't know whether the film should speak to us on a dramatic level or a surrealist level, so he did both. The result is an uneven movie that doesn't quite satisfy. On another note, I wasn't too keen on the depiction of the paramedics and people in the health profession overall--they all just seemed insane. And I felt a lot of the dialogue and voice-over narration was stale, uninspired, and just plain boring. Also, the stock plot conflict and resolution was predictable and painfully simple/bad. Whatever. It's a Scorsese picture, so you gotta see it. And for the quality of the cinematography, editing, and music you've come to expect in his pictures, you won't be disappointed.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0163988/

Eve's Bayou (1997)

4/5

Eve's Bayou is a lost gem about a black Louisiana family during one explosively eventful summer, although most of the characters don't seem to consider it anything but typical. The film starts off with a voice-over narration in which the main character, 10-year-old Eve Batiste, tells us that this was the summer she killed her father. With masterful direction, Kasi Lemmons draws us ever closer into the lives of this family: their problems, their triumphs, and their love for each other. The best parts about this movie were the cinematography, the dialogue, and the sheer power of emotions. The bayou is filled with astonishing beauty, the words are wonderfully written, and there are three powerful scenes that truly hit me when I saw them.

Despite all that, the movie has its flaws. I absolutely hated the child acting. The fact that the children were at the center of so much emotional turmoil only made the poor acting more pointedly obvious. The acting by the rest of the cast was fantastic, but the two main protagonists being as awful as they were really lowered my opinion of the piece. The story got off to a wobbly start, although it turned out to be exceptional in the end. Also, there were several scenes that I felt really had no point. At all. I literally asked myself after one of them, Why was that there? and realized there was no answer. Then I laughed at it. I also laughed at some of the bad acting. I'm not perfect, so sue me, but this is an excellent movie that I very much recommend.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119080/

The Triplets of Belleville (2003)

3/5

The Triplets of Belleville is the most interesting cartoon to come out in quite some time. The plot follows Madame Souza's efforts to track down her kidnapped grandson with the help of her fat dog Bruno and three jazz-era singers. The visual style is unlike anything I've ever seen. The exaggerated, grotesque caricatures simultaneously attract and repulse you. They're so ludicrous that they don't quite frighten you, but too scary to make you laugh. It kind of reminds me of The Nightmare Before Christmas in that respect. Similar to that film, the world is full of clever little rules and puzzles for you to discover and understand. The music is a bit bizarre, but easy to get into. Regardless, the pacing is abysmal. The story drags on and on. Indeed, it seems as if 80 minutes is too long a runtime. And in the end you come out of the movie thinking, "What was the point?" What, indeed, was the point?

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0286244/

Sweet and Lowdown (1999)

2/5

Sweet and Lowdown may have been funny, but it was not an enjoyable experience. My laughter hid my inner frustrations with the movie. The story had no arc; it was merely random event after random event with nothing to link them. There was absolutely no characterization; everyone had one character trait or tic, except for Sean Penn's Emmet Ray, who had three traits. That does not make them a character. The movie was vastly uncreative, something immensely disappointing given Allen's previous films of such exceptional creativity and quality. The abundance of music was overbearing and added very little to the overall piece, unless the intent of the piece was to annoy me. Some parts were good: it was funny and the acting was good. The cinematography and camera movement were good as well. But that does not make this a good movie. It is still a bad movie. I am disappointed in Woody Allen.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0158371/

Chasing Amy (1997)

4.9/5

Chasing Amy is definitely Kevin Smith's best movie. It effortlessly mixes comedy, drama, and romance into something with a serious thematic message that both tugs your heartstrings and tickles your funny bone. It is so fulfilling on every one of those levels, a seeming elusive task that so many other hybrid films cannot manage. The acting by all parties is spot-on, especially Ben Affleck in what may be his finest performance. The jokes are non-stop. (The "snoochie boochie" line had me cracking up for over a minute straight.) The emotional aspect reminded me of Casablanca--our emotions are played with at every evolution of the character through exposing their pasts and motivations. Overall, it was an exhilarating experience.

Technically, the film is somewhat lacking. The cinematography and editing are merely adequate--he points the camera at people and lets them work. This is pretty disappointing given the high quality acting and dialogue. And at only ten years old, it's starting to feel a bit dated already, which doesn't speak well for its longevity. Still, a movie I hope to return to time and time again.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0118842/