Persepolis (2007)

3/5

Persepolis is a decent movie with a lot of positive aspects, but also a lot of negative qualities as well. Persepolis is a mostly funny and sometimes poignant coming-of-age tale of an Iranian girl during the revolution, who is sent to Vienna for her own safety during college. It is semi-autobiographical, as it is Marjane Satrapi's story, for the most part, and she is the director of this movie and the creator of the graphic novels the movie is based on. First, it had a bumpy narrative. (Yes, I know it was adapted from four separate graphic novels, but that's no excuse for the movie's narrative to suck.) There was no overarching direction; it felt like a series of events with no relation to each other or purpose other than having happened to the same person. Not only that, but the first half seemed like a history of Iran during the time period whereas the second half was a personal history; there was no link between the two.

Persepolis had a wealth of achievements as well, though. The animation was amazing. The transitions were artistic, where puffs of smoke becomes trees in the next scene or the border around the entire next scene. I thought the use of cartoons, specifically black and white cartoons, was essential to making this story more universal. The audience don't have the option of looking at the characters and saying, "That's not me. That could never happen to me." The negative side to using cartoons, however, is that the audience loses a certain emotional connection and impact by not seeing real faces. Persepolis had an excellent use of music and movement. I can't imagine how the graphic novels looked and felt, but I'm sure it was an entirely different experience. Overall, I wouldn't really recommend this movie unless you are already interested in the topic. (I hear it's not a very good primer for Iranian political history though, as it has a very biased viewpoint and ignores essential aspects.) I assume most people interested in this movie already have the history under their belt though, so there is nothing to worry about.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0808417/

Promise Me This (2007)

3/5

Promise Me This is a laugh-out-loud comedy, but a shallow one and not much else. The plot follows an aging peasant grandfather who sends his son to the city to get three things: an icon of St. Nicholas, a souvenir, and a wife. There he finds the woman of his dreams and gets into trouble with the local mob. I was excited coming in because the director, Emir Kusturica, has already won two Palme d'Ors and I was hoping this movie would be amazing too. In fact, it is not. The humor is sometimes too over-the-top and exaggerated, such that it is no longer funny. Specifically the flying man (whose inclusion makes almost no sense narratively even) and the demolition of the club near the end show how ludicrous and unnecessary parts of the movie were. Not only that, but the special effects for those two parts were heinous. The flying guy character was worthless, as was the school bully Tomic--there are probably some other characters I am forgetting because they are so forgettable. The story itself was equally pointless; there is no real depth, just superficial fun.

There were many parts I liked about the movie too. It is genuinely funny, as I was laughing pretty much the entire time. And it was a very fun movie; it seemed like a real joy for Kusturica to have made this. The acting was good for what it was, that is, not realistic. The music was exceptional and very fun as well. I like how it was used sometimes as a person's characteristic or trademark (the superintendent trying to woo Bosa). The editing was on point--crisp, succinct, nothing cheesy. There was also some cool action that was fun to watch. Overall a decent movie, meaning I probably wouldn't turn it off if it popped up on the TV, but I wouldn't go out and try to find it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0479519/

Mogari No Mori (2007)

2/5

Mogari No Mori translates to The Mourning Forest and describes the efforts of an old man in a retirement home named Shigeki to be with his deceased wife in the forest. He is aided by a new worker there, a young woman named Machiko. I found the movie awful, boring, and ugly. The first half and the second half were not connected narratively or linked in any rational manner. Though each half was essential for the plot, what little there was, there was a distinct separation between the two halves in what should have been a fluid conversion from introducing the characters to going on the quest. The first half was filled with nuances and character tics that amount to nothing and the second half is filled with repetitive wandering in the forest. The movie was slow and exhausting with many pointless scenes. It was just too much of the same, narratively and visually. The green was overpowering and the cinematography overall hindered my enjoyment. It was a beautiful landscape that was thrown away by mediocre shots and shaky camera work. The acting was also relatively subpar, I felt, as I knew right away that most of the characters were non-actors. I didn't like the music except for the piano duet near the beginning.

I did like some parts of the movie though. It has a powerful, emotional story; it's just poorly told. The movie had a good idea for a short film, but wasted it by trying to make it feature length. There are some funny parts, some arresting scenes, and some surprises in the retirement home and in the forest. It's just not enough to make this movie good, I'm sorry. I can't believe it won the Grand Prix (second place to Palme d'Or). I'm grateful that Grand Prix winners fade into oblivion from the collective memory, as this movie goes wholly unrecommended by me.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt1016205/

We Own the Night (2007)

4/5

We Own the Night is a gritty, realist crime drama. Joaquin Phoenix plays a night club owner who occasionally dabbles in drugs, while brother Mark Wahlberg and father Robert Duvall serve in the police force. The cops are planning a big drug bust, but the Russian mafia they're trying to take down frequents Phoenix's night club. And things don't go as planned. What follows is an odyssey of constant tension and changing rules. I'll leave the rest of the details for you to discover in the theater.

The movie has a very realistic depiction of characters and events, with no superheroes and where unforeseen consequences can drastically alter the path of one's life. Indeed, Phoenix's transformation throughout the movie is unbelievably real; it is simply beyond good acting. The other actors give subtle, nuanced performances that are fleshed and full. The directing was nearly flawless. Much of the movie reminded me of the Godfather: the scope of events, the life-changing twists and turns, and the importance placed on familial ties. The entire movie seems to be an essay arguing that family is stronger than friendship. The Grusinsky family never betrayed each other, but are betrayed by best friends, father figures, and girlfriends. In fact, I found the end of the film to be the most explicit exposition, with the final words being "I love you" uttered to a family member.

Technically, this movie is rock-solid. The cinematography is beautiful--I loved the sequence with the car in the rain. There is terror and tension in so many scenes that reaches the same level as Michael Mann's best work. The car scene in the rain glued me to my seat; the scene where Phoenix enters the drug labs was heart-pounding; the end scene in the wheat field was on par with the ending to the Silence of the Lambs, where Jodie Foster is being stalked in the dark. The music was fairly perfect throughout, except a bit overbearing in the first scene.

I felt that the movie sometimes felt a bit underdeveloped. It could have benefited from more preproduction work as some plot points don't make much sense. I would have liked it to be a bit longer (15 minutes maybe), as it felt a bit rushed towards the end and as if we were missing some stuff throughout. Some characters were not unique and relied on archetypes, specifically the character of Jumbo. Other than that though this movie was quite an experience. Along with The Band's Visit and No Country for Old Men, it's my favorite of the entire Cannes Film Festival this year. I hope to see it again in theaters soon.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0498399/

À l'intérieur (2007)

4/5

À l'intérieur, or Inside, is far and away, hands-down, without exception or even competition, the scariest, most terrifying and disturbing horror movie I have ever seen in my entire life. Which I guess makes it the best horror movie I've ever seen. The movie follows a pregnant woman the day before she is supposed to go into labor, when a psychotic woman starts stalking her and, as we later learn, tries to cut the baby out of her. It is worse than The Exorcist because it doesn't bring the supernatural into it--it is just gory, gruesome, grisly violence and death. There are stabbings in all parts of the bodies (yes, including the crotch), blunt force trauma (from a toaster no less), shooting (and explosion of the things being shot), self-operated tracheotomy (later to be closed by duct tape), and eviscerations. I'm probably forgetting a couple things.

The sound design and music in this flick was flawless. It had me squirming in my seat and sweating balls with nothing going on visually. The movie is beyond scary; it is grippingly frightening. At one point in the movie, when a cop dies (I won't reveal how), I literally jumped out of my seat. I think it's actually easier to get that kind of reaction in other movies because you're not expecting something so surprising, but for them to be able to get you to do that in a horror movie, where you're expecting it, that's good filmmaking. I like how the title takes on a double meaning, as the pregnant woman gets trapped inside her house. Also, I commend the filmmakers for trying to have you sympathize with the villain (at one point they actually work together), even though the surprise/twist ending as to the identity of the psycho woman was a bit predictable. Also, the final shot is a pretty sweet homage to Rosemary's Baby, a movie I love.

There were some minor flaws in this movie as well. Once it got going, it really got going and never let up, but in the beginning it was kind of slow. They tried to make it more exciting with some cheap thrills, specifically two nightmare sequences, similar to the beginning of The Descent. Also, it seemed like near the end they were either too lazy to or just couldn't come up with more disturbing ways for people to die. The acting was acceptable, I guess. I don't really know what to look for. I mean, I was scared, so isn't that enough? The cinematography wasn't bad, but sometimes it didn't show what I wanted to see. Also, this isn't a fault of the movie, but it hindered my experience nonetheless--the audience sometimes laughed at it, which cut the tension and took me out of the mood. Anyway, if you like horror movies, this is without a doubt the one to watch.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0856288/

Karl Rove, I Love You (2007)

4/5

I went into this movie knowing nothing about it except the title, and was probably better off that way. It was actually finished ten days before the festival, so far has no distributors buying it (as far as I know, since we got to see it with the potential buyers), and there is virtually no information about it anywhere. But it is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen and also one of the best this festival. Personally, I think it is unlikely that it will get any kind of major release and you will probably never actually see this movie unless you stumble upon it by chance, but I will write my review anyway. So, on to the synopsis. It is actually a mockumentary, although you don't know that for certain until the end, about Dan Butler, "the great supporting actor," who wants to do a stage play about Karl Rove, the ultimate supporting actor in the world stage, and ends up falling in love with him. What a great idea!

Karl Rove, I Love You is a hilarious, hilarious movie. I laughed so much during this movie. It had an incredibly inventive and original idea that was carried out flawlessly. It draws you into the story. Perhaps you too might fall in love with Karl Rove, his chubbly smiling face and sparkling blue eyes, as they float endless photos and video of him in the movie. Technically, it is no masterpiece, so I won't even try to defend it on those grounds, but it's such a clever idea with amazing characters you end up loving (yes, including Karl Rove). I loved how it pushed the idea a little too far, but then came back to reality so you never really knew for certain that it was all fake until the end credits.

I absolutely hated the cinematography and shoddy DV camerawork. It was ugly, amateurish shooting, which is what they wanted and worked well with the idea, but I don't care. I hate ugly movies. The editing, on the other hand, was quite good. It cut out the unnecessary parts and kept it succinct and to the point. The acting was fine, I guess--it's a mockumentary, what acting is there gonna be? The music was effective overall, but sometimes a bit too melodramatic. The ending was a bit slow in tying up loose ends and bringing closure. Also, unlike The Sixth Sense or The Usual Suspects, there is no one moment at the end where you think, "Wow, it's all fake! This isn't a real documentary! I've been had!" (In fact, I knew quite early on that it wasn't real because of the way they shot one of the scenes near the beginning, and it didn't hinder my enjoyment of the movie--so don't get all up on my case about "ruining" it for you or whatever.) Anyway, I enjoyed this movie very much and highly recommend it, although I doubt you will ever get to see it.

IMDb link: Unavailable at this time

Smiley Face (2007)

2/5

Smiley Face is an awful teen stoner comedy, a complete 180 from Araki's previous project--Mysterious Skin, about child molestation and its effects--which I thought was extremely well-done and worth watching. This, on the other hand, shouldn't even be on a festival circuit, unless the festivals it's running are pot festivals and dumb comedy festivals. I don't even think the pot community would like this movie, as it paints a horrible portrait of pot users.

The movie follows Jane F as she gets high, eats a ton of pot cupcakes and gets even more high, and goes on a series of misadventures throughout the day. There are, admittedly, some funny parts where I laughed, but these parts are swallowed whole by the dumb parts. The entire movie I couldn't stop thinking, "How is this stupid movie in the Director's Fortnight?" The story itself was throwaway; nothing about the movie's plot was essential. She loses pot, so she gets her secret stash, only to flush it down the toilet when she thinks the cops are after her. The acting? I can't even separate it out into a subcategory and give it some sort of rating. It's just part of this disgusting movie. The characters, all of them, were worthless and impossible to relate to. Nobody would like anybody in this movie, as they are all portrayed in negative, biased stereotypes. I hated the editing, which relied too heavily on fades, post effects, etc. They looked cheesy and ugly to boot. The music, on the other hand, wasn't bad, but the movie relied too heavily on the music. The cinematography actually wasn't bad. The movie had a lot of small indie comedy actor cameos (like Hyde from That 70's Show, that guy in The Office, and Danny Trejo), but the characters they were always playing were worthless and had like five lines. Jeez, I hate this movie. I hope you are not the kind of person who does like this movie.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0780608/

Du Levande (2006)

2/5

Du Levande translates to You, The Living, and it follows the last moments of the citizens of a Swedish city before it gets bombed, while they are still alive. You don't know this until the end though, so it's basically a collage of random bits of pieces of people's lives. The entire time I was watching it, I thought, "What am I watching?" and half the time I didn't know. Some of the last moments are funny, some sad, some drab, some dull, none exciting or bright. The movie has too many characters (most of them meaningless) and no story--not a good combination. The movie relies too heavily on composition; it is filled with static wide shots and almost nothing else. There are no close-ups, so no facial expression, human connection, or emotion can be gleaned from the movie.

I guess the music was pretty good. It was eccentric, which fit the mood of the movie perfectly. And some of the movie was really, really hilarious. The first dream sequence where a man tries the tablecloth trick to cheer up a gloomy family he doesn't know, fails, gets tried in front of judges that have beer brought to them before they make their decision, and then is executed in an electric chair for it--brilliant! The rest I didn't care for, though. It was a terrible movie, with a couple funny parts, but no redeeming qualities. Don't waste your time with this movie. Hopefully it won't even get released in the States.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0445336/

Funuke, Show Some Love, You Losers! (2007)

4/5

This Japanese movie is amazing fun from the start to the end. For being "one of those quirky Japanese movies," it's surprisingly not as weird as I thought it would be going in. The characters are really unique, fleshed out by wonderful acting. I love all of them so much, especially the excessively jovial wife Machiko. The plot sounds complicated when writing it down, but is really easy to follow in the movie, so I'll just give you the general gist of it. Basically it's about a dysfunctional family brought back together following the death of the parents (in a hilarious car accident at the beginning of the movie), although dysfunctional is an understatement. Simuka has never forgiven her younger sister Kiyomi for a manga drawing four years ago that caused Simuka to be the laugh of the town and unsuccessful at getting a job as an actress (although it is ostensibly because she has no talent), and takes pleasure in tormenting Kiyomi. There are much more complications, but it all comes back together in a very satisfying way during the finale. I actually found the movie to end on a rather poignant, poetic note, where the sisters end up needing each other to get what they desire.

There is beautiful cinematography and delicious post-production effects. The story is gripping and interesting from beginning to end, although in terms of the build-up and release, they may have ended the movie a bit too late (it lagged a bit in tying up loose ends). The music was really well-done; it was effective but not overpowering. There is a comic book animation near the end that I loved, which reminded me a bit of the Snow White thing in Annie Hall (although Funuke is not nearly as cinematically creative as a whole). The movie's idea was original, funny, and touching, and one I won't forget for a good long while. I wholeheartedly recommend it; it's like Life as a House meets The Life Aquatic in terms of family drama and bizarre comedy.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0910888/

Pleasure Factory (2007)

4/5

Pleasure Factory explores the differences between love and pleasure, and the sometimes unexpected twists these paths take. It follows three different prostitutes on one night in a district of Singapore that has so many brothels that it's practically a factory for sex. The first story is sort of an awkward, humorous coming-of-age tale about a kid's first time with a woman; the second deals with violence in prostitution and entrance into and exit from the business; and the third deals with a prostitute of contradictions, who does high-profile clients in expensive cars in sleazy back alleys but falls in love with a kid who plays guitar for money.

I loved this movie, mostly because its emotional moments impacted me. The movie was both very funny and also powerful and hard to digest--the two opposites merged well together in this movie, thanks to the excellent editing. The music aided immensely in achieving mood and atmosphere. The acting was also pretty good, and the characters they portrayed were well-defined and memorable. I disliked the cinematography though, and thought it lingered on the flesh a bit too much. The nudity and sex was excessive and unnecessary; nothing was gained by seeing what we saw (and what we saw was a lot of penis). The second half dragged a little bit, without gaining much in terms of emotional closure or thematic meaning. It should have ended after it made its point at the 60 minute mark. Even so, the message is touching, especially the second story for me, and I wholly recommend it if this sounds interesting, but be warned that there is a quite a bit of sex, on screen and off.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt1018902/

Trances (1981)

2/5

This movie was introduced by Martin Scorsese at Cannes, as it is the first film restored by Scorsese's new World Cinema Foundation. In his speech at the beginning, he called this film his "obsession" after seeing it in 1981, so I had pretty high hopes for it. It is a musical documentary about the most famous Moroccan band, Nass El Ghiwane. I had seen three movies beforehand and it had been a long day, so that may have affected my viewing of it. But it was just an awful movie. The cinematography was terrible except for a few evocative shots. The band's music was actually quite mesmerizing and transporting; it was refreshingly different from the other music (or lack thereof) in a lot of the movies I've been seeing at Cannes. But for a movie that was just restored, it looked and sounded awful, as if it still needed remastering. There were faded colors, dull hues, and the sound mix goes in and out. The stories that the band tells are actually pretty interesting, but my exhausted body as well as the sound troubles separated me from them. I would not recommend this movie, even though Scorsese said it inspired some of the music for The Last Temptation of Christ.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0406280/

Meduzot (2007)

4/5

Meduzot, or Jellyfish in English, is an Israeli movie dealing with several interconnecting stories. I really love Israeli cinema lately, after having seen this and The Band's Visit here at Cannes and Broken Wings earlier. I find them made with honesty, love, and emotion, and I really feel the heart of the story through the dialogue, acting, and tender shots. The movie is absolutely beautiful, with heart-breaking cinematography at times. The rest of the time, however, it just gets the job done. It had a good message that touched me, about the ineffectual nature of trying to take control of your life instead of letting it float like a boat. The themes were clear, but not heavy-handed--an exquisite balance, I thought. The music was quite good, but not quite great. The characters were well-defined, neither trite nor unique. I realize after writing this review that the movie was not technically exceptional, it was the emotional center of the movie that grabbed me and kept me in love with it. I highly recommend this movie if you like family dramas or emotional tales told with comedic edges.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0807721/

Mister Lonely (2007)

3/5

Mister Lonely is hands-down the weirdest movie I have seen at Cannes so far. It follows the life of a Michael Jackson impersonator who meets a Marilyn Monroe and joins her at a look-alike commune. Paralleled to this is the story of a father with nuns who can fly. There are some of the most bizarre images in this movie ever. It is a movie I would hate, but the humor lifts this movie from a 1 to a 2, and the soundtrack from a 2 to a 3. This movie also has hands-down the best soundtrack of any movie I've seen at Cannes so far. It makes the movie what it is; it would be nothing without the music. There are really really funny parts, mostly from the realistic portrayal of the offbeat characters and their offbeat actions. The cinematography is amazing as well, and so is the editing. And it was never boring.

I found the acting awful, and you only realize what the movie is about through the blunt, direct voice-over. There is no real point to the events that occur. I had no idea what was going on the entire time, or rather why what was happening was happening. I have yet to find a link between the two intercut stories. I don't know how I feel recommending this movie because it is exceptionally well-done, but I have no idea what it was trying to get across. Maybe you will have some luck, and if this sounds interesting to you, then check it out.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0475984/

Le Pressentiment (2006)

3/5

Premonition, as its translated in English, is about a man who leaves behind his bourgeoisie life and helps out people in his slummy neighborhood. It is so weird in its portrayal of normalcy that I couldn't fully appreciate it because I couldn't really get into it. When I left the theater, I just tried wiggling the weirdness out of me, but to no avail. The movie kind of sort of had themes dealing with death, kindness, social strata's entrapments, but it never really delved into any of them and I didn't understand the point the movie was trying to make. Nor did I understand why things happened and why people/characters appeared and did the things they did. It used voice-over and yet did not gain anything from it, so why use it at all?

There were actually lots of funny parts that made me laugh. It wasn't overt humor like sketch comedy, but subtler, witty, bizarre happenings. Sometimes the comedy was a bit out of place though. The music and acting were adequate, but nothing special. Some shots were really good, but at times it got too artsy. The editing was really well-done though. I wouldn't really recommend this movie to anyone I know. I don't think it's a bad movie, I just don't know what anybody would see in it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0474312/

Ploy (2007)

4/5

Ploy is a movie by Pen-ek Ratanaruang that describes the effects of uncertainty and the unknown when it comes to love and how that lack of assurance can create dreams and nightmares. The music and slow pace create an incredibly palpable atmosphere of foreboding and tension. Yet you still can't believe what's happening when it does end up happening. The suspense is built up and released in measured quantities, that help us get through each sequence. The theme is well-expressed, but not shallow; it only comes to those willing to dig a little deeper into what exactly happened in the movie. There is a question of what is real and what is not throughout the movie, although I think it is pretty easily understood for those who pay close attention. Also, there are beautiful images and unique shots that stick in your mind after watching it.

The editing sometimes felt a bit pretentious, an attempt at being artsy, I felt, with extra time spent lingering on worthless objects/scenes and a deliberately slow pace. The acting was pretty good for the most part, but the written dialogue could get quite wooden at times (and at others it could be quite poetic and insightful). I really enjoyed this movie and got a lot out of after a bit of time spent analyzing the thematic messages.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0993778/

Ulzhan (2007)

4/5

Ulzhan starts off with a mysterious character doing bizarre things. His actions are intriguing because we want to know why he's doing everything. He is French, but is in Kazakhstan heading further east, where he meets a word-seller and an Asian French teacher. He seems not to care about anything: getting arrested, losing his passport, dancing women. He is fueled by guilt and remorse and a lack of rational thought. The story is unique and gripping from the start, and as reasons are gradually revealed, we are drawn even deeper into the mystery. The imagery and cinematography are both amazing. The offbeat characters are brought to life by acting that is able to make them seem real and well-defined. The dialogue, on the other hand, is not so great. But the finale hit me like a pile of bricks; the images and the symbolism were just so powerful and had such an effect on me.

The music was usually well-utilized, but sometimes got a bit overpowering. The emotional story is only a small snapshot of the main character's past. The side characters are unfortunately never really fleshed out, and some subplots seemed like they were last-minute additions to repeat his theme. It seemed a bit heavy-handed in getting across the message. Also, there were some shots of archival nuclear footage that was really weird. Still, I enjoyed the movie a lot and suggest it if you like movies that engage your curiosity and take place in beautiful landscapes.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt1016033/

El Baño del Papa (2005)

3/5

The Pope's Toilet, as it is translated in English, is not that great of a movie. In fact, I'd say it was probably my least favorite of the films up for Un Certain Regard. This might have been due to a difference of expectations, as I thought it would be a comedy, but in fact it ended up being a depressing family drama with a few funny parts. The shots somehow seemed raw and overprocessed at the same time. The composition and lighting was also not that great. I didn't think there was much of a story, as I felt it just went back and forth with a swath of unfulfilling subplots. The acting was okay, but nothing to write home about (despite my writing home about it here). The narrative felt exhausting; it took forever to tell its story. The music choice and placement seemed a bit odd overall. Nearly all the characters were selfish and I found it almost impossible to sympathize with them.

Even so, the story was quite engaging and it had me on the edge of my seat the entire time, wondering what was going to happen. And the movie really isn't that bad, it's just that I had much higher expectations given the other movies in the running for Un Certain Regard. I guess it just wasn't to my tastes.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0482901/

La Soledad (2007)

4/5

La Soledad, which translates to Solitary Fragments in English, starts off by describing the every day happenings of two families whose lives become intermingled when Adela rents a flat with Ines. The title takes on significant meaning halfway through the movie following a tragic incident. This movie was exceptionally well-done from the start. It was slow-paced throughout, but never felt long or boring, despite its 140 minute running time. The acting was amazing; my favorite part of the movie was the conversation between Adela and Pedro about guilt. There is a union of cinematic and thematic ideas, with a split-screen often used to show the fragmentation and isolation of the characters. The split-screen is often hidden, the visual midpoint being walls or curtains, so that on the surface it does not even look like the characters are separated and alone. In fact, the split-screens are shown in such a way as to almost demand you let go of your sense of space (for example, a character might move out of sight on the right side of the right frame and move back into sight from the right side of the left frame) and just trust the director. I especially liked the use of split-screen in the dialogue, showing that even in conversation, when we are actively talking to other people, our connection to them is still limited by an invisible barrier.

The script seemed banal at first, but after the midpoint, emotions heightened and the dialogue took on more weight and meaning. The music was almost nonexistent, but also not necessary. Also, the movie is shot entirely with a static camera. Surprisingly, it never felt staid or old. It was constantly active due to the exceptional editing job. Another thing is that I didn't really understand why it started and ended when it did; the choice of when in their lives to begin telling the story and when to stop seemed a bit random. With that, there were some scenes that could have been cut without losing much if anything at all. In addition, the style makes it take a while to get into the movie. I'm wondering whether or not I'd see it again, but I am definitely glad I got the opportunity to see it today and would definitely recommend it to others (if you can handle the slow pace).

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0812377/

My Brother Is An Only Child (2007)

4/5

This Italian movie follows the story of a family in the 60's and 70's set against the neo-Fascist party/Communist movement upheaval, specifically of two brothers who choose opposite sides. It is at times funny, at times political (sometimes too political for my tastes), and at times dramatic. It is able to be what many movies cannot be, a true unity of different genres to make it its own thing. While the components may no longer be unique, the sum total certainly is. The story is rich and full and never boring; so much happens in this whirlwind of a movie as the main brother, Accio, grows up and changes that it is almost overwhelming, but not quite. The acting is adequate, but I did not find it exceptional. The cinematography and shot composition were also pretty good, but seemed somewhat bland after seeing the tons of other stunningly beautiful movies. The editing and music choices were perfect though and made the movie twice as good as it would have been without them. And the girl is just gorgeous.

Despite being up for Un Certain Regard, I thought that there were some negatives associated with the movie as well. There were so many characters that were supposed to be big but ended up with minimal screen time. For example, Mario, the guy who introduces Accio to the Fascist party, starts out in a role similar to Alfredo in Cinema Paradiso, but fades away for half of it and jumps back in for a little bit at the end. The movie is full of roles like that, characters whose involvement you hope for highly and end up never feeling satisfied by them. And with that, a lot of loose ends in terms of story and emotions are left loose, unfulfilled. The ending was a bit ridiculous, I think, and a bit too saccharine for me. Also, it didn't quite touch me as fully as I think it did some others in the audience. Even so, I enjoyed my time watching this movie immensely--the director seems like he's trying to return to the classical Italian film that Fellini began, and he doesn't have much farther to go.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0846040/

Blind Mountain (2007)

4/5

Beginning from an incredibly simple concept that is fully explored, this film crushes its audience with its power. In the 1990's, a Chinese girl goes to the rural countryside with a businessman and another girl in the belief that she can make some money by helping them sell medicine. Once there, she wakes up the next morning to find out that she has been kidnapped and sold as a wife to one of the men of the village. She tries to escape many many times, and is punished after every attempt. The sense of torment, entrapment, torture, and utter desperation is evoked precisely, and the camera that records it is unflinching and effective. You, the audience, are in her shoes and there is no escape for you. Throughout the movie there are episodes of foreboding, an unquiet calm, tension peppered with action. The movie ends after an emotionally exhausting nightmare, and it is so good. The audience started cheering before they even knew it was over, proof that Li Yang knows how and when to end his movie.

The acting and story and emotions on display were exceptional, if the dialogue was a bit lacking. The simplicity of the story denied a huge depth of analysis, but it never felt too simple or boring/repetitive. Some of the characters in the movie were given short shrift; I never really felt I got to know some of the minor characters. The music was nonexistent (or at least felt that way if there was some), but I don't think it would have helped the movie increase the tension if it were played up. This movie is exceptional and should be seen as soon as possible if you're interested, and after all your friends have raved about it if you aren't.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt1020972/

The Piano (1993)

4/5

This movie is emotionally complex, well-shot and well-edited, with richly developed characters, amazing acting (Anna Paquin as the daughter in by far her best performance), and a wide variety of potential analytic paths. The movie deals with a woman who chooses not to speak a single world (played beautifully and poetically by Holly Hunter), but loves to express herself through playing the piano. She is married off by her father to a man in the middle of nowhere, but falls in love with another man after giving him "piano lessons." The finale is filled with incredible emotion and suspense--while watching it, I had no idea how it would end, which is a testament to the film's ability to create a world that is wholly its own. It is not predictable because we have not really seen a movie quite like it before.

It does have some problems though, as with any movie. There are a lot of loose ends that are never tied up, minor characters that are never really fleshed out, and a manner of speech that take a little while to get into. Characters' actions are never fully explained, leaving us as the audience the task of figuring out why they do certain inexplicable, provocative things that they do. Even so, it is highly recommended if you like romances, but not if you don't.

Note: This film played with French subtitles in place of English subtitles where signs were shown or the Maori language was spoken. Even so, I understood about 90% of those subtitles and they did not hinder my enjoyment of the film. It was also shown on the beach, so there may have been audiovisual distractions from time to time.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0107822/

The Mugger (2007)

2/5

Beneath crisp cinematography lies a hollow entry into the Critic's Week. The Mugger follows the exploits of an old man as he tries to steal money from schools. It is shot in a quasi-documentary, hand-held style, which makes it a bit more frightening because it seems more real. Except for about three moments of intensity and excitement though, the idea that started off interesting, unique, and mysterious became old quick and boring faster, despite its 70 minute running time. There is no explanation for the character's actions, and no consequences. It is, in a sense, a document of certain moments of time with no depth behind it or analysis. So really, why did I see the movie? What did I get out of it but about three minutes where my blood pulsed slightly more rapidly? The answer, I felt when leaving the theater, was nothing.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt1006823/

My Blueberry Nights (2007)

4/5

I waited for two hours to see this movie, and I was not disappointed. It's quite good, but I'm going to write about what I didn't like about it first to get that painful stuff out of the way. Norah Jones's acting was atrocious in the beginning; it seemed amateurish, ditzy and unreal, as if she were reading a script, and reading it poorly. After a while I got more used to it and it fit in with her character better. Also, she looked A LOT like Hilary Swank, and I just couldn't get that fact out of my head while watching it. Jude Law was a bit unnatural too. The cinematography looked beautiful, but it played not so well. It was a bit edit-heavy and the lovely slow-motion shots in his earlier films no longer had their "cool" effect; instead it ended up being just excessive and annoying.

Now, onto the good stuff! I loved the Strathairn/Weisz segment and the Portman segment. It was back to the good old Wong Kar Wai I know and love, and in perfect form. The acting was flawless, the characters unique and full, the story touching and meaningful, and the emotions/tensions high. The dialogue was much much better than the Law segment(s) and had a much richer analytic framework. The music choice was always awesome, although sometimes its presence might have been a bit overpowering and too ever-present for my tastes. I especially liked the musical homage to In the Mood for Love at the end of the movie. I left the theater thankful for my experience, despite the long wait in the sun and the flaws in the movie. It is well worth watching for any Wong Kar Wai fan.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0765120/

Bikur Hatizmoret (2007)

4.9/5

Bikur Hatizmoret, which translates to The Band's Visit, is an Israeli movie by Eran Kolirin, and it is definitely my favorite film so far of the entire Cannes Film Festival. (It is up for Un Certain Regard.) It is a 90 minute long comedy that follows an Egyptian police band as they arrive in Israel for a concert. When the car doesn't come to pick them up, they try to take a bus, but they go to the wrong place, where they have to stay the night. This movie is so funny; it is like an Israeli Little Miss Sunshine but with more heft and weight and authority in its filmmaking. The editing is flawless for pitch-perfect comedic timing. The cinematography is breathtaking; every shot is like wow. The acting was amazing as the awkwardness of a stranger in a strange land was palpable. The story had depth, emotional power, heart, and feelings. There were fleshed out characters, characters that were so well-defined that they weren't changed in that one night to give us the happy ending we wanted.

Even so, it seems like there were a few bizarre things added in for comedy and not much else, like the guy who was waiting by the phone for his girlfriend to call. This isn't a big complaint, but it's startling to see in contrast to the rest of the exceptional film. Also, a lot of people fell out of love with the movie after the actions of two of the characters at the end of the film, but it didn't bother me so much. But like I said, this movie is amazing, and I will be the first to see it with you if/when it gets released in the States if you want me to.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt1032856/

He Fengming (2007)

2/5

This movie's title is translated as Fengming, A Chinese Memoir, and that's really exactly what this movie is, unfortunately. Here is the setup for this three hour long movie: A woman talks about her life. And voila, we have a movie at the Cannes Film Festival. Disgraceful! There are only three camera movements in this entire movie, all of them worthless. The rest of this movie is a static head-on view of an old Chinese woman talking for three hours. In Chinese. Which meant I read her story for three hours. That's exactly what I feel this movie should be, a written memoir for people to read. There is nothing filmic about this movie in the least--it is simple videography. I almost feel as if the director just took the cheapest, laziest, quickest route possible and thought it would be hailed by those who love "artsy" stuff. An ambitious, dedicated, or at least competent director would have actually made a movie out of the story she is telling.

Even so, her story was moving and quite engrossing. I didn't actually look at my watch (disgruntled) until around 2 hours in, which is a testament to her story, I suppose. There are two or three emotionally crushing parts, and her voice--the way she trembles, stops, and cries--is incredibly important at getting across that message. Even so, this should be a book (or at least an audio recording), not a movie. I would not recommend watching this, but if you are interested in China's Cultural Revolution and anti-rightist movements, her story is very appealing and, according to the woman, she is writing a book about her history, so you should probably check that book out and not this movie.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt1032880/

The Mosquito Problem and Other Stories (2007)

2/5

This is a unique type of free-form documentary. The people talk to the camera as if they are taking direction and what they are saying is not what they normally would. It feels not like an interview but a reading. However, this style adds to the humor. While this documentary is not what anyone would consider a funny movie, it definitely has its moments and has a quirky, witty way about it that made me laugh, chuckle, or at least smile more than once. Unfortunately, I think that is also a problem. It is reflecting the director's viewpoint and quirks and not that of the citizens of Belene, which I don't think was its intention. At any rate, the cinematography was beautiful, the editing seamless, and the music amazing. At the end of the movie, everything is tied back together and seemingly random bits and pieces finally have bigger meaning.

The movie has a lot of problems though, one of which is a difference of expectations, perhaps as a result of its title. The movie doesn't really talk about the mosquito problem that much, instead it focuses on the Bulgarian city of Belene and its inhabitants, quirks, and ups and downs. However, that generates the question; so now what? What was the point? What did I get out of this movie. And sadly, I think very little. Don't bother with this movie unless you are interested in a small Bulgarian city named Belene or a director named Andrey Paounov.

Note: This was the second film I saw in the Critic's Week selection and there were only French subtitles (but the subtitles were not the problem, the movie was).

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt1043510/

Wild at Heart (1990)

4/5

Wild at Heart is so funny. I was laughing the entire time. I would love to see this movie with Sameer; he would laugh with me at literally every single word that is spoken and action that occurs. But there are two different reasons one might laugh. You can laugh because you think it's just a bad movie, but I am fairly certain that it is not. It is in fact cleverly mocking bad movies. It is a satire and a spoof, and a shallow exploitation film set in the late 80's. It is like Rodriguez's Planet Terror except set in a more realistic world (although thinking about it, not that much more realistic) with more sexploitation than horror zombie flick. In the first five minutes of the movie, there is excessive violence, cursing, nudity, and sex. The movie loves its shallowness; Nicolas Cage and Laura Dern speak their lines with the most effective faked fervor I can remember.

All that being said, it is what it is. A stupid, cheesy, exploitation 80's grind house film. Even though it is a satire of that genre as well, it fits the mold perfectly and cannot sit outside of it. It is funny, but not very fulfilling or meaningful. You walk out of the theater and think about something else.

Note: I saw this movie as part of the Cannes retrospective series on the beach, so there were many distractions (although I think I tuned them out pretty well).

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0100935/

The Milky Way (2007)

4/5

This Brazilian movie was the opener for the Critic's Week at Cannes, and I was so glad to be there watching it. The movie is basically a very simple relationship drama, but a heartfelt one that is deeply emotional. The director chose to use physical incidents to show somewhat ethereal feelings that would be otherwise hard to depict on film, which makes for a more visceral experience than you might at first think. And it rings true, with cute flirting in the beginning and misspoken words and other mistakes in the end. It is both funny and powerful, although the ending did seem a bit excessive. The acting was really good, and the director didn't feel the need to dumb down most of the movie. The film was, all in all, effective. It does the job it set out to do, and does it quite well.

The scenes where the two people first meet each other was a bit excessive and almost gratuitous in the nudity and sexuality. And while the movie as a whole didn't feel too long, because of its structure it sometimes felt a bit repetitive. (But I like how you learned more about the story with each similarity, so there was some value in it.) There were a few unexplained things at the end, but I actually enjoyed it because it gave you more to think about after watching it; it's not so simple that you are able to just watch it and then immediately afterwards digest it. Highly recommended if/when you get a chance to see it. I hope to see the director's future works as well, as she will definitely go far if she continues like this.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt1058027/

Ocean's Twelve (2004)

3/5

Ocean's Twelve was an enjoyable comedy/heist movie. The heist elements were pretty subpar for the most part with a couple cool things thrown in here and there, but I thought it was just so funny. My expectations were so low because everyone came out disappointed (because the first one was so good) that I actually had a really fun time watching this. The acting as always was great, the laughs consistent and solid, and the directing light and fun. There are cameos and big names like nothing you've ever seen before. And, for the most part, it just works. You let go of small inconsistencies because you're entertained.

However, the plot was pretty pitiful, a fact that cannot go ignored; it felt like it was trying to construct a story around the actors' schedules and not the other way around. Because of that, I was actually impressed when all the actors were on the screen together. But the story's limitations really hinder it, considering it's a crime movie with more than twelve main characters in it. Each character really should have some fundamental role in the narrative, and they don't. They're merely accessories. This is what is lacking in this movie that people seemed to love about the first one. Anyway, I greatly enjoyed myself while watching it, and if you're interested you should definitely check it out.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0349903/

The Ladykillers (2004)

4/5

The Ladykillers is a truly hilarious movie, both while watching it and while remembering it. Tom Hanks, Irma P. Hall, J.K. Simmons, and Marlon Wayans are unforgettable. Their characters are off-the-wall on paper, but portrayed with such vivacity and honesty to make them fleshed out and believable. The story (crime), the cinematography (crisp), and the dialogue (black comedy) is undeniably Coen. The brothers Coen have practically outdone themselves in shot composition and camerawork; every frame of this movie is utterly pristine, precise, and pretty.

Even so, the story wraps itself up a bit too nicely at the end. The introduction to the characters, while extremely funny, felt conventional and uninspired. The dialogue, specifically from Hanks's character, is extraordinarily fast-paced. It could be argued that this somewhat diminishes your enjoyment on the initial viewing but it also gives huge replay value as you get jokes you missed the first time. I honestly don't have many more cons about this movie. It is exquisite.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0335245/

Stalker (1979)

4.9/5

Stalker is one of those science fiction movies that is not about the action and adventure of space or the future, but about the mystery of the unknown. Watching it reminded me of The Fountain, not only because of their difficult-to-decipher narratives and symbols, but also because of their incredibly beautiful imagery. Tarkovsky holds the extended shots to their breaking points, and is able to do so because we are so awed by what he is showing. There is much in the shots (and the story and the dialogue) to pick apart and look at in myriad ways. I have a feeling that when I watch this again (and I'm certain I will) the movie will seem to tell a wholly different tale. Similar to The Fountain, the movie is a journey--a philosophical one, a metaphorical one, and at its heart an emotional one.

The basic narrative describes the Stalker leading the Professor and the Writer out of a gray city into the Zone, which houses a room where their innermost wishes will come true. And with such a simple premise comes one of the most complex and engrossing movies I have ever seen. The characters are intricate and diverse, aided by immensely talented acting. The cinematography was absolutely breathtaking, as was the editing and the music. The concept for the story and the directing kept me enraptured. Unfortunately, I did find some of the shots go on for too long. The meaning of the movie as a whole was hidden to the point where it seemed almost nonexistent unless one were desperately searching for it (as the characters within the movie are). Perhaps that is part of the point it's making? The seemingly incomprehensible nature of the film can dissuade viewers, as can the two hour and forty-five minute running time, but the movie can be a mind-blowing experience if you let it be.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0079944/

Aladdin (1992)

4/5

Aladdin is a Disney classic, well-loved by all. Watching it again brought me back to when I first saw it as a child. I could remember all the times I laughed, sang along, and got scared. It's a remarkable whirlwind of an experience. Robin Williams is incredible as Genie, as is Gilbert Gottfried as Iago. The rest of the acting, enh. Acceptable. I was surprised to see the use of CGI in the movie, forgetting it had been there. It was actually quite seamlessly interwoven with the drawn animation for its time and to the untrained eye (but not so much for me now). The music is just plain unforgettable. The plot is a bit simple and contrived; there's not much there except to propel the characters to do the next thing on the Disney to do list. The jokes were very kid-oriented, with a couple lines thrown in there for the adults. I think there is a shift though in modern animation, with movies like The Incredibles and Shrek having a much greater percentage of adult jokes than previously. But there are also almost no songs to sing along to anymore, which saddens me. Perhaps it is for this reason that Aladdin is one of those treasures you always remember. They just don't make 'em like they used to.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0103639/

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

4/5

I found Shaun of the Dead to be a very entertaining movie. I laughed more than I thought I would and I was on the edge of my seat more than I thought I would be. (To be honest, I had no idea what to expect.) It is a British movie, and as such has British humor, which I like. I think the reason that this movie was so successful is because it's so inventive. It is like almost no other movie I have seen. Yes, it tries to incorporate more genres than it can handle, but I don't think the point was to be a romantic comedy and a zombie horror movie and a spoof, but to mix those into a wholly new genre. It's able to create a world that is believable in the same way that fantasy worlds can be believable. The characters just fit in the worlds so well.

It is a surprisingly well-produced film, with excellent cinematography and editing. The music was also quite good. I think a lot of the humor fell a bit flat though--there's nothing worse in a comedy than a joke nobody laughs at. The story was surprisingly engrossing, the characters very fleshed out, and the tension palpable. There were emotional parts that hit harder than in a drama because I wasn't expecting them. Overall, though, it's hard to recommend. I think it requires a specific audience to enjoy. If you only like romantic comedies or you only like zombie horror movies or you only like spoofs, you might not like this movie. But if you're open to trying out creative new movies, then you might want to check this one out.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0365748/

Mouchette (1967)

1/5

Two one-star movies from the same director. Does Robert Bresson have a talent for making terrible movies or what? And he is somehow critically acclaimed and lauded by fans. He doesn't believe in acting, dialogue, or emotions. He knows nothing of cinematography, lighting, and editing. He disregards all traditional aspects of filmmaking to generate some self-indulgent form of "pure, austere" cinema. Only it doesn't work. It doesn't interest your emotions, your intellect, or your gut. In fact, it does nothing for you. And it has got to be the most boring movie I've ever seen where stuff actually happens. It's just the most banal, unimportant, and insignificant things that are occurring. The screenshot is about as exciting as the movie gets. How does Bresson make an 80 minute movie feel like an 800 minute movie? Don't watch this movie. Ever. Under any circumstances.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0061996/

Grindhouse (2007)

4/5

Grindhouse is pure entertainment of the most guilty form. And two movies for the price of one! With the most hilarious trailers in between them! I don't remember the last time I had this much unadulterated fun in a movie theater. I've seen "better" movies in theaters recently, but never enjoyed myself this much.

The first movie, Planet Terror, is from Robert Rodriguez, who has always loved the exaggerated. This is why the El Mariachi trilogy was so successful--it is excessive. But in Grindhouse, Rodriguez really lets loose. And being a grind house film, he has an excuse to. Planet Terror is everything I expected: gory, gross, and cheesy. Heads explode, penises melt, guns attached to amputated stubs shoot rockets. This is the kind of movie you'll watch in a theater and come out cheering, "THAT WAS AWESOME!" But it doesn't just copy other movies without a life and mind of its own. There is a "missing reel" in the movie, which Rodriguez cleverly uses to advance the plot without wasting our time. Rodriguez also uses stock footage effects to enhance our moviegoing experience, rather than detract from it. This is loads of fun, but be warned: it is disgusting and definitely not for everyone's palate.

The second movie, Death Proof, is from Quentin Tarantino. Every single one of Tarantino's movies has been a spin on a typical genre, and Death Proof is no exception. Like most of his movies, there is a ton of dialogue, and it is all luscious. It is like silk in your ear. But coming after Rodriguez's movie, I felt a bit disappointed. Wasn't this supposed to be a grind house film? Well, it is, in a way, and it isn't, in Tarantino's way. It has the same elements: sexploitation, blaxploitation, psychotic murderers, and old muscle cars. But there is something undeniably fresh about the way Tarantino puts it all together. And despite what I said coming out of the theater, upon reflection I see it as a movie that can and should stand on its own as an excellent example of Tarantino's style. It is actually good filmmaking. I don't know how well it works as the second half of Grindhouse, because Planet Terror is raw, old-school, brainless fun and Death Proof is polished, new, inventive art. It's an interesting dichotomy. Regardless, I would recommend you check Grindhouse out in theaters if you still can, because this is not to be missed on the big screen.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0462322/

Diabolique (1955)

5/5

Diabolique grabs you from the start and never lets you go. It is at once mysterious and intense, but it continues to excite because the underlying reason for the fear shifts throughout the film. The tension in the beginning is a result of the way M. Delassalle abuses his wife and mistress (to the point where they console each other). In the middle it is caused by the imminent murder of M. Delassalle by the two women. And for the last half of the movie, the tension reaches a peak because M. Delassalle's dead body has gone missing.

This movie is perfectly crafted, from theme to execution. Watching this movie is one of those rare treats in cinema where every aspect of filmmaking comes together, and without flaw. The lighting and cinematography work on a thematic level, with ubiquitous bars of lights and shadows, stairways and columns, visually imprisoning Christina, the wife, to reflect how her marriage traps her. The dialogue and acting are expressive, yet subtle. They are meaningful, layered, and nuanced, yet never unnatural. The story is a treasure to unravel; it is clever and funny in more ways than one. You can watch this movie once and think it is amazing, but you can also watch it again and get a completely different picture (still thinking it's amazing).

The story, written by Boileau and Narcejac, felt more contained and thought-out than Vertigo, which they also wrote. That being said, the story gets a bit excessive and ludicrous in the planning of dirty deeds. And there is a force of good and order at the end--perhaps the creators were too unsure of themselves to let the bad guys win, much like Kurosawa in Rashomon? Either way, this movie is required viewing for lovers of Hitchcock. It rivals some of his best and surpasses most of the rest; and it also works really well as a partner piece for Vertigo. And as the original poster tagline says, see it and be amazed by it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0046911/

Shoot the Piano Player (1960)

4/5

Shoot the Piano Player manages to mold two separate moods into one. It is French New Wave mixed with film noir. It can be powerfully dramatic and poignant (the extended flashback to Charlie's earlier life as a concert pianist) or deliriously witty and fun (the car ride with Charlie, Lena, and the two bad guys). And it switches effortlessly between the two extremes. I love the scene where Charlie is walking Lena home and is contemplating how he should ask her out for a drink. He is so caught up in his thoughts that when he finds the right way of asking, she's already left without him even realizing it. It's this sense of humor when it comes to film styles (specifically film noir's voice-over narration) that makes this movie stand out. Truffaut understands film intimately and loves it enough to playfully twist it around for his own purposes.

However, there are some flaws. Being French New Wave, the technical skills are extremely lacking. The sound is poor and the camerawork is amateurish. There is no lighting; some shots are almost pure black, despite there being two people in the frame. Not that I expected any of these to be positive aspects of the movie. The reason I am not giving this a higher rating is that I walked away afterwards and just said, basically, now what? What did I get out of it? It was a difficult question to answer. It is fun though, and very much recommended.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0054389/