A Mighty Heart (2007)

4/5

A Mighty Heart tells the true story of five-month pregnant Mariane Pearl's attempts to locate and save her husband, a journalist who was kidnapped by terrorists in Pakistan. It shares many qualities with United 93, which was about the September 11 attacks, with the most obvious one being that it takes a national tragedy and fictionalizes it in the hopes of making it more powerful and engaging to audiences. They both use very documentary-style camerawork and editing, although I think both elements were much more fluid in A Mighty Heart. In attempting to avoid melodrama by keeping it unbiased and factual, both movies merely present the information and leave the viewer to take what he will out of it. I found no overarching purpose, theme, or message. Even so, both movies were made tastefully (it never felt like they were taking advantage of the tragedy for commercial gain) and both movies succeed on the emotional front, which may be in no small part to the innate power of the true events.

To separate the movies now and talk about the qualities of A Mighty Heart on its own--the most outstanding part of the movie was Angelina Jolie. Her acting was realistic, moving, and emotionally draining. My favorite part of the movie was during her first public interview. "If there was one thing you could say to your husband now, what would it be?" Almost cutting the interviewer off, her instant and touchingly candid "I love you" had a powerful effect on me. The music, acting by other characters, and technical qualities were also quite good, but nothing stood out as much as Jolie. And she carries the entire movie, pretty much. I sometimes felt uninterested when it followed the investigation for too long without going back to Jolie's character and how she was responding to the situation.

And as a simple, emotional story, it works. But as more than that, I feel that it doesn't. Like Breach, an excellent character study on Russian spy Robert Hanssen, it leaves you unfulfilled. Why did they make a movie that doesn't explain the underlying reasons for the characters' actions and merely presents events? We see a strong woman put in very trying circumstances who stays dedicated to her husband and then it ends. Was there some character growth or just exposition? It irks me, and almost feels like laziness on the part of the filmmakers for not making a point. But it would almost be demeaning to think that one person's life or death can be summed up as simply a take-home message and nothing more. So I am at an impasse about how I feel about this movie. Still, a very good movie, although I doubt it would be thought of as such if it were not based on true events and were made the same way. Highly recommended if you are interested in the subject matter, or if you like emotional stories.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0829459/

The Last of the Mohicans (1992)

3/5

The Last of the Mohicans feels more like a Mel Gibson movie than a Michael Mann movie. The plot follows the French and Indian War as an action movie, a romance, and a historical period piece. But it doesn't quite live up to expectations as a Michael Mann action movie because he spends too much time on the other genres, and he's much much better as an action director. It took bits and pieces from varying genres and threw them together with no regard to its target audience. In addition, there were a number of subplots that were never followed up on (e.g., the colonials defending their homeland). Because there were so many, you leave not really knowing the point of most of the movie. I felt like it could have been a 30-minute movie and I still would have gotten the same overarching message. The action was too tame; it felt like a PG-13 movie and not an R movie. Where was the Michael Mann I know and love? Also, the dialogue he fills his movies with is usually slick and cool. There wasn't much of that in this movie, and it felt like he sacrificed that for generating a mood of time and place. Which is a shame, because I love his dialogue.

And yet there are a great number of positives. It was extremely well-shot and well-edited. That is what kept reminding me that it is not a Mel Gibson movie--it looked too good. They really took advantage of their locations and sets, and shot setups and framings were absolutely phenomenal. The music, while overbearing sometimes, was overall very effective at kick-starting the action and getting your blood pumping. While there were a number of subplots, they actually fit together quite nicely. The relationship that blossomed between the two minor siblings was unexpected and unique, fleshing out the story. Also, I didn't realize it would go so in depth into the "bad guy's" background and reasons for seeming so inhuman. It was a surprising and quite welcome asset to the movie that made it a richer action movie than I expected. And there are bits and pieces that are just stand-out. One line of dialogue I can't stop thinking about because of its subtler meanings and the fierceness with which Daniel Day-Lewis delivers the line: "They're not strangers, and they stay where they lay." Overall, a pretty good movie, but it left me feeling just a bit unsatisfied.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0104691/

The Producers (2005)

3/5

The Producers, a remake of Mel Brooks's directorial debut, follows the travails of two men who try to get rich overselling a play destined to fail: Springtime for Hitler. It was funnier than I expected, though I didn't expect much. I don't much like Brooks; his humor is generally not my style. Be that as it may, I did laugh a significant amount during the movie. (Not a whole bunch, mind you, but a significant amount nonetheless.) Most of the humor was brought to the forefront while some of it was left subtly in the background for the vigilant to pick up on. I did enjoy the screwball antics of the characters, although their mannerisms were a bit out of place and unnecessary, as if they were trying too hard to make the characters unique. Nathan Lane had a surprisingly Gilbert Gottfried-esque voice that kept making me think of Iago. The music was surprisingly catchy, though it did get old near the end. The rhymes and jokes in the songs were really really well done, I thought. The acting, enh. The cinematography, not bad. The editing, clunky at first and much more fluid towards the end. The script and dialogue, pretty funny. At 130 minutes, the movie seems a bit long for a comedy musical, though it never really felt boring or overlong (although I was doing the dishes and moving around for some of it). Overall, I recommend the movie to Brooks fans even though his original is probably more to their tastes, but to those who don't like him or don't like screwball comedies, you should probably pass on it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0395251/

2046 (2004)

4/5

Seeing 2046 was like watching In the Mood for Love but with an added element of a future fiction world and the relationship between a writer and his work. My biggest complaint with this movie is that it adds nothing to the table that Wong Kar Wai hasn't already done, so it becomes an almost burdensome task to sit through and watch this movie as if you're rewatching In the Mood for Love. Though it feels like the thematic companion, it is technically the sequel, which makes me like the characters less because it is as if they haven't matured or changed very much. The same problem plagues both movies: it feels as if Wong doesn't know when to end. He just keeps going and going. Some of the themes were too blunt and forced. Some of the slo-mo effects were obnoxious and didn't work quite as well as in all his earlier movies. And as Sameer noted during the movie, the displays of affection were quite bizarre and overexaggerated.

Now, onto the good stuff. The cinematography is jaw-droppingly luscious. It's probably Wong/Doyle's best of their collaborations. I would compare it only to In the Mood for Love, although this one is more expansive and inventive while In the Mood for Love was more restricted and conservative in tones, hues, and compositions. The music was amazing, a perfect soundtrack with just the right amounts in just the right places. It wasn't too overpowering as in My Blueberry Nights. And I really did enjoy the stuff that wasn't in In the Mood for Love, like the fictional futuristic universe. I thought it was one of the best parts of the movie and was disappointed at its relatively limited inclusion. (I didn't think the special effects were that good though.) I also liked the concept of how a writer weaves his own life stories into his work in different ways. It was always interesting to see how events were reinterpreted in the 2046 world. What I liked specifically about this movie that I don't recall happening in any of his other movies was the use of setups. It seemed like the entire movie set up curious behaviors and shots that teased you, only so that later on they could reveal the underlying reasonings. Normally I feel it's a cheap tactic to get you to like the movie more, but here it works surprisingly well. (My only complaint is that when it ends, it starts tying up all the loose ends with very poetic ruminations. It makes you feel like the movie is about to end, but no, there are about five more subplots whose endings need to be tied up.) Anyway, I definitely recommend this movie if you haven't yet seen In the Mood for Love, but if you have, there's not much to warrant seeing this unless you're just dying to experience Wong's entire oeuvre.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0212712/

Deep Red (1975)

2/5

Deep Red is not the scariest horror movie ever, as my Penn-in-Cannes organizers would have me think. It is merely a dated attempt at horror that John Carpenter copied in Halloween, except Halloween was better. Dario Argento's "masterpiece" is mediocre overall, but it shows a valiant effort that I respect. The shots were framed with purpose and precision as if they were meaningful, but they were not. The camera movements were sloppy, distracting, and over the top. The music was interesting at first and very similar to Carpenter's music in Halloween, but for the last 2/3 of the movie, it became a heinous, dated rock synth piece that was repeated over and over again. The sound quality was awful, the violence was tame, and the special effects were laughable. The acting and the editing were less than noteworthy. The plot meandered and had numerous pointless subplots. Like Carpenter in Halloween, but with worse pacing, Argento tries to increase tension with boring scenes where nothing happens. To the movie's credit, many images are arresting and imprint themselves in your brain. Some scenes are very unsettling and stick with you. But overall, I wouldn't recommend this movie because Halloween is everything this movie tries to be, only it succeeds.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0073582/

Foreign Correspondent (1940)

3/5

This movie, as with all Hitchcock films, has scenes that put you on the edge of your seat. But not enough. The first thirty minutes of introduction were boring and, when looking at the entire piece, unnecessary for the most part. Much of the plot felt contrived, trifling, and excessively circuitous. The plot focused too much on politics and details, which is perhaps this movie's greatest downfall. It was too preachy and not entertaining enough. The movie is a surprising atypical Hitchcock because there just isn't that much suspense in the movie to keep you occupied for 2 hours. The movie should have been 60-90 minutes in length. The music, usually extremely fitting and thrilling in Hitchcock's films, felt melodramatic and cheap in this one.

The movie did have many good qualities (it is a Hitchcock after all). The camera movements were unerringly fluid and the shots were well-composed, although some of the special effects were a bit obvious and painful to watch. What little suspense and excitement there was fit comfortably in the Hitchcock oeuvre. There was much more comedy than in his later films; the dialogue was witty and fast-paced, but sometimes a bit too fast-paced. Overall, I wouldn't recommend this movie to a Hitchcock fan expecting a typical Hitchcock movie because it just doesn't live up to those expectations.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0032484/

Hot Fuzz (2007)

4.9/5

Hot Fuzz is the first movie I saw in theaters after Grindhouse where I felt like I got my money's worth, and then some. (It was also the first movie I saw in theaters after Grindhouse, not counting Cannes.) From start to finish, there was never a dull or boring moment. The dialogue was witty and peppered with multiple references to I don't even know how many movies, many of them classics (2 that I caught and remember from Chinatown, 1 from The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, and at least 3 from The Departed). Every single time I recognized one of them, I smiled so wide I almost couldn't focus on the rest of the dialogue (partly because they race through it, as is typical of British humor). The story didn't rely on these homages, though; it had a life and soul of its own (and plot, as much as any action movie can have a plot of its own these days). The music and action was extremely well done; I didn't realize such a funny movie could also be so tense. The cinematography and editing were also excellent, even ignoring the homages and considering the camerawork and cutting on their own merits. The acting was also quite good. And the best part about this movie is the replay value. I can watch this many more times (and very much want to right now) and catch a ton of different things each time. It's layered not unlike an onion, and that is a sure reason I will come back to it time and time again.

As always with any British movie, sometimes their accents made it difficult to hear them and therefore get some of the jokes and plot points. Being a comedy-spoof-action movie, it doesn't have much staying power or meaning. When it does try to go for that dramatic message, however, the entire movie slows down a bit too much and it isn't very convincing. I do admire that they're trying though, but I don't know how well it fits. The character list is massive and mostly forgettable, with some characters clearly being superfluous--I don't know why that many people were in this movie at all. It is at times shockingly and extravagantly gory, like Shaun of the Dead, but it was less expected in this movie. Overall though, these are pretty small and fictitious negatives about the movie, so I strongly recommend you go out and see this as soon as you are able.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0425112/

Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999)

3/5

The first time I saw this I was much younger and hated it, mostly because I absolutely loved the first Austin Powers movie and thought it didn't live up to the original. But with age, I have grown to enjoy this much more. I laughed an embarrassing amount while watching this (on a quiet airplane, no less), despite the horrendous candy-ditz acting by Heather Graham. There were a lot of unspoken, subtle jokes that I got this time, as well as movie references, that allowed me to experience the movie anew. The comedy was painfully bad sometimes and the jokes occasionally got old or went on for too long, but the movie overall was hilarious. I enjoyed the music very much, as well as the 60's style camerawork and editing. And really, that's all you should be looking for in an Austin Powers movie. It's a lot of fun. I don't really know why I'm writing this review, since the only people who are interested in this movie have probably already seen it. But if you haven't and are interested, feel free check it out.

Note: I saw an edited-for-TV version of this on an airplane with distractions (a baby kept kicking my seat) and a portion of the movie had its audio cut for an announcement from the pilot.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0145660/