Deconstructing Harry (1997)

4/5

Deconstructing Harry is a hilarious foray into a neurotic writer's life and mind. Harry Block travels to upstate New York where he's going to be honored by his old college. On the way, he gets a chance to reflect on the choices he's made, both in his writing and in his life. His stories and the characters that inhabit them stem from real people and real events, which has often caused anger and resentment by those whose secret and personal lives he's put on display through his work. I love this movie because it is both meaningful and entertaining. I found myself laughing the entire time. But it also made me think about this writer's life, how he took advantage of it, and what his creations (or are they merely alterations?) mean to himself and to others. Deconstructing Harry is an absolutely wonderful and delightful fantasy about real life that is witty, nostalgic, and philosophical all at once. I loved the acting by all parties and especially enjoyed spotting soon-to-be-famous actors in small roles (Tobey Maguire, Paul Giamatti, Jennifer Garner, etc.). I am in love with the way he made Robin Williams (and himself, later) blurry and out of focus while the rest of the scene was crisp and sharp. I wish I knew how he did it. You can see Allen's creativity positively brimming and overflowing in this movie (although not as profusely as in Annie Hall).

I fail to understand the purpose of the neurotic editing, except perhaps as a banal and gimmicky way of putting the director's own flightiness and anxiety into his work, as Harry Block replicates his life in his writing. Using this editing style to start the movie was extremely off-putting. Some scenes feel rather pointless, without adding much to the table in terms of plot, humor, or pathos. Also, most of the movie is told from Harry Block's point of view, and as such takes on a cynical and misogynistic quality, which obviously may not be for everyone (take his version of Hell, for example). Otherwise, though, a thoroughly fantastic movie that I enjoyed and appreciated from start to finish.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0118954/

Caché (2005)

4/5

Caché (Hidden) is the kind of movie that you can't just watch and then be done with. You need someone to talk to about it because it's ambiguous, because it doesn't give you simple answers, and because it crawls under your skin and doesn't let you go. It is a tense tale of a family who becomes terrorized by their own guilt. The movie starts after they find an anonymous tape outside their door that contains footage of themselves during their normal daily routines. At first they think it's a joke, but then they start receiving disturbingly violent drawings and the story gets much more complex.

The brilliance in the filmmaking comes in the use of cinematic techniques. Instead of showing the footage as grainy, as from a hand-held DV camcorder, it is filmed with the same clarity and crispness as the rest of the movie. Every static, extended take in the film could be taped footage by the voyeur and we would be none the wiser until the characters talk over it or rewind it. The spots that the voyeur uses to videotape them later on in the film become the same spots Haneke uses to show us the action. There is no difference to alert us to what is a videotape and what is this movie. Indeed, it raises the possibility that this entire movie could serve the same purpose of terrorizing the audience and bringing skeletons out of our closets. The viewers becomes implicated by the movie just as the characters start to feel guilty about their actions; being imperfect, we the audience also all have our own dark pasts we'd rather not relive.

I loved how our opinion of the main character shifts halfway through the movie into an almost complete reversal. Daniel Auteuil's phenomenal acting makes this about-face believable. The rest of the acting was equally rich and it fleshed out the characters and environment. The editing was competent, although scenes very often went on for too long. Instead of generating discomfort and unease, the early scenes merely generate disinterest. Scenes later in the movie, however, were stretched out effectively to create and sustain tension; our own fear of what is to come is our biggest rival. Unfortunately, the story was very simple (the characters/acting are what enrich it) and the dialogue rather basic and uninteresting, save for a couple good uses of subtlety and ambiguity. It also got frustrating because sometimes people wouldn't say what they were thinking. Their silence is later explained, but it was annoying and pedestrian to watch Haneke blatantly obfuscate the plot to increase the mystery/suspense. Despite this, I highly recommend the movie as a thinking man's thriller. It effectively uses cinematic techniques and an emotional backstory to give us something we've never seen before. And to the attentive viewer, you will be greatly rewarded.

Note: At the end of the movie I became really interested in finding out more about it and its meanings (since most of the plot is left open-ended), so Sameer and I decided to see the Haneke interview on the DVD. It was very enlightening and I definitely recommend it after seeing the film. Perhaps it is a failure on the movie's part not to make some of Haneke's choices more obvious to the public, but I think I could have gleaned most of that information myself after giving it the requisite amount of time and thought (which I was willing to do). Anyway, just know that this star rating and review were given after some of our questions were answered by the director outside of the film as a whole.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0387898/

Falling Down (1993)

2/5

Joel Schumacher's Falling Down follows an unemployed defense worker (Douglas) with a temper problem. Seeing "flaws" and "problems" in society, one day he violently and psychotically lashes out against them. A cop about to retire (Duvall) spends his last day trying to hunt him down and stop his violence. The characters are very much off the wall and unique, yet don't quite work. They're too extreme. The story escalates formulaically, but doesn't follow the formula to the end. It starts too exaggerated and goes sideways halfway through instead of finishing with the explosive finale expected. The acting was actually pretty good (Duvall's laugh was amazing). I liked the intro (a ripoff, but a good ripoff, of the intro to 8 1/2); it was incredible at eliciting discomfort and an unsettling atmosphere. The rest of the movie is so ludicrous that it becomes laughable, but is fun and funny in its caricatures. This isn't a good movie, but it's enjoyable in the same way Sameer can place Crash in his top ten comedies.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0106856/

Ratatouille (2007)

4/5

Ratatouille is a delightful family movie with aspects nearly everyone can enjoy. Remy the rat has a gift for cooking because of his sense of smell, but his father wants to use him as a poison detector instead of letting him live his dreams. Linguini is a buffoon hired out of necessity to be the garbage boy of a famous restaurant that recently fell out of favor with food critics. Their paths cross and the adventure begins. The animation is absolutely brilliant; every frame makes you stare in awe. Liquids, fur, and their combination are notoriously difficult to animate and they were stunning in this film. The ingenuity and the innovation were real joys to watch (Remy marionetting Linguini, all the rats cooking in the kitchen, etc.). It was fun to watch and never got old or boring. These are rare traits in a modern movie, and much appreciated.

I found the characters a bit hollow. Remy was the chef who always made the perfect dish, Linguini was the moron who never got anything right, and Colette consistently and predictably chose the wrong ingredients. All the characters were so set and never surprised you. Also, some of the scenes would increase in climax but never quite reach their peaks. For example, many scenes would end with a fade out or cross dissolve into the next one with no real satisfaction of ending the previous one. The comedy was a bit too rare and the emotions were a bit too common; it tries to be too meaningful and doesn't succeed at being funny enough. The plot is a mite too complicated because it feels as if it's trying to tell two stories instead of one--the rat story and the human story. Overall, very much recommended for anyone who loves Disney Pixar and Brad Bird (of The Incredibles fame).

Also, I loved the short that they showed in the beginning (Lifted) and found it to be my favorite of the ones I've seen.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0382932/

The Simpsons Movie (2007)

4/5

The Simpsons Movie is fantastic and fun the entire time. I loved seeing this movie! My mouth was open the entire time. Literally. The jokes were so rapid-fire that if I tried closing my mouth, I would have to open it again before it shut completely so that I could laugh at a new joke. It is unbelievably funny and a worthy addition to the Simpsons name. It's so much better than the average new episode coming out on TV and highly recommended. In addition to the many, many clever gags, there were uncountable subtle references to movies I know and love (like Independence Day, when the shadow came and covered the town). Also, the animation was great: brilliant yellow as you've never seen it before! And in hi-def! But perhaps what I liked most about seeing the film was the heartfelt emotion that doesn't always find itself so honestly in the series. After growing up with these characters for the better part of my youth, yes, I found myself choking up at some parts. And then I laughed.

But for hardcore fans, of which I do not consider myself one, it seems it was a bit of a letdown. It was especially disappointing after seeing the absolutely incredible first twenty minutes of the film and getting their hopes up. They recycled many jokes, situations, and plot devices; where was the fresh, edgy humor the show was first known for? Personally I was a bit put off at the rather limited inclusion of Mr. Burns, Apu, and other relatively minor characters. I didn't like how they added an evil bad guy just for the movie, especially considering they could have made him Hank Scorpio in the exact same role and it would've worked even better and been even more hilarious. Also, the abundance of jokes, trying to cram every last thing into this movie, got a bit tedious at the end. You're just waiting for the movie to be over. And in all honesty, laughing for 90 minutes straight has to be bad for you in some way; that can't be healthy. I hate saying these negatives 'cause I loved the movie and absolutely recommend it to anyone even remotely interested in the Simpsons or American culture through media. It is exemplary.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0462538/

Little Children (2006)

4/5

Todd Field's Little Children dramatizes the dark and sometimes dangerous underbelly of suburban parents and their interactions. The large cast of characters is well-envisioned, well-developed, and well-acted, although Patrick Wilson's performance sometimes felt a bit affected and rang false. Detailing the minutiae of these people's lives was oddly magnetic and hid the beginnings of an ominous foreboding. The plot follows some surprising avenues, heavily describing characters that at first seemed secondary. The editing was excellent. It propelled the movie forward, paced each story equally and fully, and still managed artistic flourishes here and there. There are scenes of incredible tension starting in the middle and increasing in magnitude as it nears the finale that hold the audience's attention and breath. I found myself emotionally involved with the characters as well.

Onto the parts I hated. I cannot get out of my head the completely unnecessary and distracting voice-over narration. I've said before that it's an excuse for sloppy filmmaking and that a good filmmaker can show visually what the narrator is saying. In this case, the narration actually adds nothing to the plot or characters and only serves to distance the audience from the events on-screen, reminding us that this was based on a book. There is not even anything to replace with images. Every single line the narrator was saying should have been simply excised. Also, I thought the film sort of chickened out from a satisfying ending, but in a way it also reaffirmed that it was trying to depict real life and that normal events happening in the span of a two hour movie cannot elicit life-changing decisions from real characters (or at least these specific events). And everything gets tied up in a bowtie a little too nicely at the end. Some of the director's decisions are just impossible for me to approve of. The slow-mo football game that reminded me of the homo-erotic mud/rain football scene in Invincible is one. Another is the overpolishing of scenes, separating them from reality. Despite these many problems, however, the film is engrossing and keeps you watching. If it sounds interesting, give it a spin.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0404203/

Premonition (2007)

2/5

Premonition follows Linda and her husband Jim as their marriage is slowly dissolving. One day she answers the door and a cop tells her that Jim died in a car accident. The next day she wakes up in bed with him alive, and the next day it's his funeral. And back and forth. The reasons for this constant shift in time remain unexplained. It's an empty gimmick to get your attention during marketing so you pay for a ticket, but nothing really happens with it except muck up the plot line with impossible paradoxes. The plot is seriously awful, filled with holes and meandering, unrelated side stories. It is painfully obvious how the movie tries to capitalize on the techniques Memento popularized. The cinematography for most of the movie was abysmal. Two scenes in particular were like The Bourne Supremacy only ten times worse--yeah, that shaky.

I have to say though that there were actually a couple things I liked about this movie. The mood was exceptional; it kept you on edge and constantly looking for an explanation. Unfortunately, none came. Some of the dialogue wasn't bad, raising questions about morality and guilt, but when it did it felt completely out of place. Most of the time the dialogue acted simply as a lazy way to advance the plot. And I didn't mind the acting for the most part. Anything seemed Oscar-worthy after the dross I saw in House of Games. The editing was surprisingly good. The separation of the days of the week helped make sense of the unnecessarily confusing time shifts. Each day was given approximately the same amount of time and felt just as important as the others. After the first couple of days, however, when we figure out what's going on, it's simply a matter of time waiting for the event/ordeal to end. But the poster for this movie is amazing. Absolutely stunning. It has nothing to do with the movie, but still. Anyway, very unrecommended, although it is not completely without merit.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0477071/

House of Games (1987)

1/5

House of Games is about a psychiatrist who gets involved with con men. And it sucks. Awful, made-for-TV acting. Awful, ugly actors. Awful, hollow script. Awful beginning, mediocre middle, and predictable end. Average cinematography. Competent editing. Pleasant music. It's been picked up by Criterion, but sometimes they do make mistakes. Terrible, terrible mistakes. Do not watch this movie. No matter what.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0093223/

Suspicion (1941)

3/5

The one word to describe Suspicion is disappointing. The plot follows Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine as they embark on a relationship together, only for her to find out that he's not all that he seems. She gets suspicious of him and soon begins to fear for her life. Like any Hitchcock, the thrills and suspense are there in full force. The tension ratchets up as the movie slowly but deliberately evolves from an air of unease to outright fear and paranoia, as only Hitchcock knows how to do. The acting was actually quite good (subtle and not overly sensational). I really really loved the character of Beaky--what great comic relief while still maintaining a naturalistic air of realism. He's a caricature, but never feels like it because of the brio and verve in his role.

Being a Hitchcock, albeit an early one, the movie has a lot to live up to. And it does. Up until the final 60 seconds of the film, where it falls completely flat and disgraces itself with a silly, dissatisfying ending. Underwhelming seems too tame a word to describe it. It is so out of left field, coming from such a strong start and from such a standout director, that you are completely blown away by how such a bad ending could have sneaked its way into an otherwise stellar film. I also though the beginning was a bit slow compared to his later, better pieces. Instead of heightened tension, the film started out in an eerily unsettling way because everything about Grant's character was off just a little but you couldn't put your finger on what it was about him. It paced itself well from there and, while it was interesting and effective, it wasn't exactly what I wanted or expected from his movie. Also, the music was a little more gimmicky and less appropriate than in his later ones. I would like to point out that the same basic plot can be found in Nicholas Ray's phenomenal noir In a Lonely Place, which stars Humphrey Bogart. I was enraptured much more and found it thematically richer than this film; I highly recommend it. If Suspicion's plot attracts you to it, go see In a Lonely Place instead. You will not regret it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0034248/

Ali (2001)

4/5

I knew nothing about Muhammad Ali's life story going in, so this movie was a very eye-opening experience for me. I like how the movie wasn't simply a boxing movie, but really dug into all aspects of his character, including the social and political realms he affected. His motto, "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee," could describe this movie as well. It flows naturally from scene to scene buoyantly and then strikes the viewer hard when the fight scenes occur. Technically, this movie matches Mann's other works. The crisp and beautiful cinematography by Lubezki is exceptional in this piece, bringing a visceral realism to the fights and ethereal fluidity to the rest. The music was spot-on, although sometimes a bit too prevalent. The acting by all parties was outstanding, although I think Smith's acting in the title role was slightly too weak to carry the entire picture (although quite strong overall). But it was really fun to hear Ali trash-talk.

It did have quite a few problems as well, I thought. It was too long. It meandered in meaningless areas that I never really cared for (although more knowledgeable fans might have found them interesting) and unexplained subplots. A firm sense of time and place was never really achieved. There were no dates or locations to inform the audience; the only markers were social events like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr.'s deaths. The problem with the amazing cinematography was that Mann got too enamored of it, unable to cut parts out to keep the piece tight. The editing was competent for the most part, but failed to impress. Other than these minor squabbles, though, I really liked the film.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0248667/

Do the Right Thing (1989)

4.9/5

Do the Right Thing approaches racism from the opposite end from what we are all used to. It doesn't show the good that's present in all races, but rather the inescapable mistakes we all make when hatred clouds our thoughts and actions. This gives the audience a more visceral and memorable experience. We side with those we're biased towards and find the actions of those we're biased against unfair and excessive. We become involved; the film reaches inside us and pulls out or own hidden prejudices. Just like In the Heat of the Night, Do the Right Thing succeeds because it shows how everybody errs, not how everybody is perfect.

Watching this movie again, I was struck by how naturally the day proceeded, thanks to the editing. It didn't feel scripted or forced. What also impressed me was the depth and breadth of the characters in this neighborhood. Like The Rules of the Game, the audience recognizes and remembers every person who shows up on screen despite the extensive cast list. The script is also stellar. There are scenes of remarkable tension, incredible warmth, and biting humor.

I'll be honest, the clothes, language, and music are extremely dated; they are laughably bad. Also, what was with that intro kickbox dancing segment with the funky colors? Seriously, what is that? I found a lot of the camera angles to be both unflattering and distorting, shedding off some of the film's realism without adding to the message or tone. However, the few exceptional shots there were stood out even brighter in comparison. Also, most of the acting was pretty mediocre, except for John Turturro and Danny Aiello. Taken as a whole though, this piece is exceptional story-telling that will imprint itself in the memory of anyone who sees it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0097216/

The Pianist (2002)

4/5

The Pianist follows the real-life survival tale of concert pianist and Polish Jew Szpilman in Warsaw during World War II. It evokes an almost flawless sense of time and place. What starts as a family trying to maintain normalcy in trying circumstances gradually transforms into a desperate fight for survival as they realize the gravity and extent of the situation. The atmosphere was riveting and captivating. The movie held your attention because you had no idea what might happen next; people could get murdered in the blink of an eye, for any reason or lack thereof. There are many horrifying scenes that stay in the memory: a wheelchair-bound man who cannot get up to salute the Germans, a woman who asks a simple question, and a man about to be killed when the officer runs out of bullets. One of these moments reminded me of Rear Window. Watching, we are stricken with guilt because of both our own morbid curiosity and our inability to help out. The editing and advancement of the plot were exceptionally naturalistic. The music, although not as prolific as I thought it would be in a movie named The Pianist, was quite good when it appeared.

The cinematography was slightly above average, but nothing worth noting. At 140 minutes, it overstayed its welcome. It felt even longer because of the dense nature of the material being presented. The acting was not bad, but I felt it was a bit over-hyped. And Adrien Brody's nose is simply too big. Overall, it's not really my cup of tea, but it's an exceptional movie of one man's survival against brutality and malice.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0253474/

In Cold Blood (1967)

4/5

In Cold Blood is the true story of the brutal killing of a Kansas farming family, as based on Truman Capote's book on the subject. The first aspect that you notice is the crisp, black and white cinematography--absolutely beautiful as only Conrad Hall can do. The light work is more impressive than the compositions to me though, which is rare. The shadows and smoking bring to mind film noir, except this movie has subject matter and characters more unflinchingly violent and dark. The plot and characters evolve in subtle nuances and hidden complexities that enrich the film and engage the viewer. The acting was deep, although at times it felt a bit forced and dated. Almost equally magnificent is the fluid editing job. It exudes competence and thematic relevance, both in shot-to-shot cutting and overall structural organization of the film. The dialogue was also great, but like the acting, was sometimes a bit forced and dated.

What hurt this movie most for me was the music. Its placement and simplistic presentation were painful on both the ears and the mind. Sometimes everything was just too blunt and obvious, from character motivations to stylistic decisions. Some parts simply didn't work well within the context of this movie. Also, the film takes a couple liberties with the real-life story that overdramatized it, I felt. What almost ruined the entire film for me was the absolutely unnecessary voice-over narration at the end. Overall though, extremely highly recommended for the exceptional camerawork and editing, the deeply-layered characters and acting, and the tense atmosphere and mood. A stunning achievement.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0061809/

Inherit the Wind (1960)

3/5

Inherit the Wind is a good movie based on a good play, but it's not great. Following the minutiae of the sensational Scopes monkey trial, it feels somewhat dated. The best part about it was the amazing acting by Spencer Tracy and Gene Kelly. I didn't get much more out of it except a few good lines, a couple good laughs, and some neat cinematography. The rest just failed to impress. It may have been because I directed the play in high school and was already very familiar with the material; the movie to me was just the sum of the cinematic qualities distinct and separate from the story and message. As with Crash, the point the movie seemed to be making was the equality of all (in this case to be able to think). Both Haggis in Crash and Kramer here failed in their filmmaking because they bias the movies. Kramer very evidently takes the side of the evolutionists and makes the fundamentalists laughable. Brady should have been more of a commanding presence than a farcical caricature; Drummond always struck me as a little meaner and more arrogant than he's presented here. The editing was uninspired and common. I hated the music so much; it was pedestrian and irritating. Overall though, an interesting piece and recommended if you know nothing about the movie or are interested in the Scopes monkey trial, but it doesn't stand well to repeat viewings.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0053946/

Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)

3/5

Letters from Iwo Jima follows the infamous battle from the point of view of the Japanese fighting for the island. The titular letters did nothing for the movie except foster cheap soap-opera melodrama and sloppy filmmaking. I found the cinematography pedestrian and the desaturated colors worthless. It was long and supremely unexciting; and it brought nothing new to the war movie genre. There were too many superfluous characters and side plots to the point where the story itself got to be confusing. And the sense of time in this movie was extremely difficult to follow (a month or two would pass randomly and we would have no idea) thanks to the plebeian editing. What I did like about the movie was the depiction of war. This is not your typical war movie because these men are not fighting, but merely trying to survive. There were some events that I wasn't expecting that jarred me and kept me interested. I really liked almost all of the acting. And it's not bad per se, there's just nothing new here. Not recommended.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0498380/

The Host (2006)

3/5

The Host is a Korean monster horror comedy that follows the travails of one family to get their daughter back from a mutated fish beast. What this movie did right was to detail near-perfectly a sense of place. Like in Shaun of the Dead, there is an otherworldliness to this movie that just works. It's not real, but once you step in, everything fits according to its own bizarre rules. The comedy and the horror worked extremely well sometimes (especially at the climactic moment), but sometimes they interfered and worked against each other. And it was really funny; it felt odd at first to laugh at dramatic moments, but you quickly get used to it. The script was actually really good; it goes further than you think it will many times. It has a refreshing amount of interesting and unexpected twists and turns and actually contains some very emotional moments. The acting I don't really know how to judge because the movie as a whole was just so odd.

There were also a lot of things I didn't like about the movie. The way it's constructed, it feels like so many scenes were superfluous. Not in the sense that the events happening might not have been important, but that the way they were shown tried to increase tension. It would get you excited and then cut before something happened and when it cut back after a while, everybody would be fine. It negates the entire atmosphere of fear. Also, it wasn't nearly as funny as Shaun of the Dead, the action wasn't as good, and the special effects sucked sometimes (especially the fire crap). The movie wasn't funny enough to be a comedy or scary enough to be a horror movie. I really wouldn't recommend this movie unless you know what you're getting into.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0468492/

The Aura (2005)

4/5

The Aura, Bielinsky's second and final feature film, is vastly different in pace and tone from his first, Nine Queens. It follows an epileptic taxidermist who fantasizes about the perfect bank robbery; during a hunting trip, he gets an opportunity to make his dreams come true. The first third and last third of this movie are absolutely blissful to watch. The tension is palpable; an ominous mysteriousness pervades every frame. The sound design was particularly evocative and helpful in achieving this air of unease. The cinematography is brilliant in its composition and its concept and equally brilliant in its execution. It really took advantage of all the locale had to offer; my favorite shot of the entire movie was one where the camera was pointed up at tall, darkened trees swaying in front of a white sky. The editing was exceptionally fluid, and used the beautiful music to its fullest. I loved the scene near the beginning where Ricardo Darín decides to go on the hunting trip; it fades between him in the same sitting position across four or five different locales. Which brings me to Darín's acting. It is an incredible, indelible performance, just like the one he gave in Nine Queens. He does a complete reversal from his previous role, however, from a fast-talking, desperate con man to a reserved, brooding thinker. The dialogue is purposeful and precise with a natural delivery that never seems forced. The script is great as well; the side plots were important parallels and never felt superfluous.

The middle third of the movie sagged ... a lot. It was especially disappointing because the first third had given me such high hopes. But the middle was too slow and tried to build tension where there was none. I think this movie would be near-perfect and would deserve a 4.9 rating if it had been 15 minutes shorter. Other than that, though, what an amazing movie. And highly highly recommended as long as you know what you're getting into; it's a character study first and a heist movie second.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0420509/

The Black Dahlia (2006)

2/5

The Black Dahlia is a completely fictionalized detective story set in the 40's about the real-life murder and dismemberment of Elizabeth Short. Based on a novel by James Ellroy (L.A. Confidential) and directed by Brian De Palma, I was pretty excited when I first found out about it, and pretty disappointed to hear all the terrible reviews. But I gave it a chance anyway, which was unfortunate. This movie is not very good. The problem with this movie was not that it was too confusing, but that it just didn't make any sense. The characters' motivations and actions were out of the blue and absolutely ludicrous sometimes. Everything was so exaggerated. The plot of the first half feels random and unnecessary, only for the second half to reveal that all these coincidences and side stories were vitally important. Most important-looking characters ended up being superfluous and most forgettable ones turned up again at the end. It somewhat cheapens the whole thing. The dialogue tried too hard and fell flat. It was often hard to hear what people were saying, or divine the meaning behind their words. The characters were unconvincing and felt really out of place in the environment, although I did like the acting. I particularly hated the echoing voices of people remembering important things that others had said.

The cinematography, set design, and costumes worked really great. There was one really slick sequence where Johansson's character sees Hartnett's character with another woman that I thought was done exceptionally well. Some of the fighting was cool, although it was mostly in the beginning. The music really wasn't bad at all and the editing was at least undistracting and competent. At least most of the movie was pretty interesting, despite not really knowing what was going on. All in all, very highly unrecommended whether you're interested in it or not (although it wasn't as terrible as my extremely low expectations).

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0387877/

Miller's Crossing (1990)

4.9/5

Miller's Crossing is exquisitely detailed, exceedingly complex, and fully realized from start to finish. Darkly comic, this crime movie set in the Prohibition-era 30's tries to be a film noir in dialogue and a gangster movie a la The Godfather in content. Instead of fitting well into either category, it ends up being a fresh blend of both. Filled with double crosses, hidden agendas, and snappy dialogue, the plot can get quite confusing at times, but never out of reach for the attentive viewer. It envelops you in its own world, where every word has meaning if you know how to hear it right. The atmosphere is so real you're breathing the same air they are. My favorite aspect of this movie, and what keeps me coming back for more, is the abundance of subtle nuances left in the background for the especially watchful to pick up on. While the movie does explain the main story, it leaves a lot of important side stories and relationships open for the audience to chew over and realize on their own, which makes it much more engaging and memorable for those watching.

Onto the technical specifics. The acting was unerringly precise from all parties. The editing was terrific, milking every shot and scene for all they're worth while still maintaining mood and environment. The script itself is so rich and multi-layered in plot alone that it could stand up to analysis from a dozen different angles and produce different results each time. The dialogue is pithy and smart, as only the Coens know how to make it, although it does sometimes feel a bit "written." And it requires a very sensitive ear and very active mind to pick up on everything.

I remembered it being prettier, and was a little disappointed seeing it again and noticing rather bland colors and flat shots. While brilliant in composition and framing, the actual execution itself was not up to my expectations. The sound design as well made it a bit difficult to hear what the characters were saying, although perhaps the accents and word choice added to that problem. The dialogue doesn't quite succeed as a 40's noir, but the fervent and dedicated attempt more than make up for it. The music felt extremely out of place, specifically the choice of the main theme and also the times at which it would crop up, almost as if by accident. Also, some of the violence was a bit too exaggerated and almost laughable, although I'm pretty sure it's intentional. Very highly recommended, for any Coen brothers fan, Byrne fan, or gangster/noir fan. I will leave you with my two favorite lines from the movie.

"Nobody knows anybody. Not that well."

--"Look in your heart, look in your heart!"
--"What heart?"

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0100150/

Knocked Up (2006)

4.9/5

Knocked Up is an incredibly hilarious movie about a one-night stand that turns into a pregnancy. From a simple story comes incredibly rich and developed characters and healthy doses of humor and heart. You go to see this movie for the jokes (and I was laughing the entire time), but the staying power rests in the deeper meaning and take-home message about life and love. Unlike other comedies like Hot Fuzz, when this movie tries to make a dramatic point, it feels like part of the movie and not a side note. The flow in this movie as the mood shifts gears is fantastic, aided by excellent music choices. My favorite parts were when people were arguing, because it seemed like that's when the characters were most themselves and the details and subtle mannerisms showed. That was also when I laughed the hardest. The writing in this movie was not exactly brilliant or original, but the stellar acting brought it to life. Being a fan of The Office, I especially loved seeing Darryl from warehouse, Ryan the temp, and Steve Carell make cameos. And Alan Tudyk from Firefly. I especially loved all the references to other movies, not just in dialogue and background sets, but also in plot and shot constructions.

There were some things I didn't like about the movie, although infrequent. First, much of it was simply too graphic. Random boobs were wholly unnecessary. And why they showed a newborn crowning is a mystery to me. A bit out of place in this comedy. Second, many of the side characters and side plots, while very funny, simply took away from the movie instead of adding to it, except in length. Sometimes characters' moods and motivations shifted and changed with little explanation, although it was never too unreasonable. Every so often something you thought was small would turn out to be extremely important and vice versa, which sometimes felt like forcing the plot in a certain direction in an otherwise fluid script. Also, the cinematography and editing were nothing to write home about, not that you would think they might be. All in all, however, a very entertaining movie that's more than just a stupid comedy.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0478311/

Zodiac (2007)

4/5

Zodiac is a 2 hour and 40 minute epic about the real-life unsolved case of a serial killer terrorizing the California community in the late 60's and early 70's, the media sensation covering it, and one cartoonist's obsession with it. Fincher's directing was phenomenal throughout; despite the film's running time, I was tense and terrified the entire time. The acting by all was equally stellar and a real pleasure to watch. The music did a great job at setting and maintaining mood. The cinematography and editing were just as amazing, and probably Fincher's best to date. Eye-catching shots were crisp and clean with a glossy sheen; I loved the silky smooth shadows flowing across people's faces, cars, and houses. The beginning had a lot of unique point-of-view and tracking/following shots, but they were gradually replaced with more traditional shots as the bulk of the content began. This film's greatest strengths are the flawlessly-captured time and place and the thoroughly-detailed characters. And the script was witty and fun.

The biggest detractor from the movie was its length. The movie consists of several main stories that could each have their own film, and if you're not interested in one, that's half the movie that's gonna bore you. None of the stories felt tacked on because they were all given a great amount of depth, but perhaps too much for everyone's tastes. Luckily, I loved all the stories and didn't really mind the length because of the great acting and great directing. The movie needs to decide what it wants to tell and tell that; instead it provides a great many details from a great many number of sources with no main driving force. Characters appear and drop off when the details bring them to the forefront. Many subplots seemed forced, as if every lead in the case and new piece of evidence required a thrilling story to go with it. Also, the movie loses a little steam at around the 2/3 mark, when a typical movie would be approaching its end and this one has none in sight. All in all, however, I highly recommend this film if you are at all interested in detective stories or movies about serial killers. This one is fantastic, and it goes past the surface of a simple story and into the real effects on the lives of those following the case.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0443706/

13 Tzameti (2005)

3/5

The plot of 13 Tzameti revolves around a very interesting idea that is carried out very well. A poor immigrant roof worker steals an envelope intended for his recently deceased employer and follows the instructions inside in the hopes of making some money, and from there gets involved in a dark and dangerous "game." I urge you not to see the trailer or read any reviews that give away the plot, because there's not much to the movie other than the rather simple story. But it is a harrowing thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat for most of the movie. The editing was on point, the shots were really well-composed, and the lighting was usually very evocative.

It starts off at once mysterious and ominous, thanks to the overpowering and not-so-subtle score, but very quickly you realize that the first thirty minutes are worthless. And once it's over you realize that the last thirty minutes are worthless, and that this movie really should have been made as a 30 minute short film. It's just a good idea, not a fully-fleshed out movie. Most of the movie is pretty mediocre: simple story, missing message, unimpressive acting, worthless dialogue, uninspired music. The black and white cinematography didn't add much to the movie and was simply a cheap yet effective way of making it look prettier (albeit older). It felt odd and out of place seeing modern cars and technology in black and white. And most of the shots were also extremely minimalist, which took away from the realism. But the nail-biting tension, on par with the scenes with Christopher Walken in The Deer Hunter, is what you should see this movie for because that is all it really is. Recommended if you're interested in thrillers and suspense movies, but don't try to sniff out the plot details before watching.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0475169/

The Good German (2006)

3/5

The best part about The Good German is how it looked. A murder mystery set in 1945 post-war Berlin, it attempts to emulate a film noir style but doesn't quite succeed. The problem is that Soderbergh doesn't know film well enough, and doesn't get the specifics right. I liked how he made the film look, with his stark black and white photography and slightly blurred images, but film noir didn't look like that. While film back then was never quite as crisp as the HD cameras we have now, it was certainly more crisp than the TV-style images inhabiting this movie. And the heavy black and whites with minimal gray midtones was too stark for 40's noir; it felt more in line with the worse film grain from the mid-30's. Additionally, while noirs are supposed to have confusing, labyrinthine plots, this one is a bit excessive. At the end of the movie, I really had no idea what had happened, which is never a good thing. I understood more about The Big Sleep. It seemed as if there were a bunch of innuendos and assumptions that the characters went with that I never got, which left me in the dark for most of the movie. Also, there were so many "references" or "homages" to Casablanca, not just in shots, but in entire plot constructions, that it just felt like theft to me.

On the other side of the stick, the cinematography was amazing. The lighting and composition in so many scenes were spot-on and looked like actual 1940's film noir. The consistently bleak mood and dark underbelly of surviving in such a ravaged situation fit nicely in the noir genre. While the swearing and sex were not exactly staples of film noir, their inclusion in the movie made it feel more crude and more vulgar, which I believe is how film noir felt in the 40's. The acting was amazing by all parties. Tobey Maguire unnerved me, Cate Blanchett was equally stunning and deceptive, and George Clooney, it seemed, really would stop at nothing to get to the truth. Unfortunately, this movie is not a film noir, for a great many reasons, and despite all its efforts, it is merely an unsuccessful attempt at one. Not really recommended, but A for effort.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0452624/

A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints (2006)

3/5

A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints is the strangest film adaptation of a book I've ever seen, because it's also about what happens after the book was published. The movie centers around Dito as he comes back home to his sick father and remembers his past life experiences in the tough Astoria, Queens neighborhood of New York. As a gritty, realist coming-of-age drama, the movie works. The excess, about him coming back home after twenty years, felt worthless to me. The directing as a whole actually felt really creative, especially considering Montiel is not really a director. The editing style evoked a nostalgic mood, and most of the movie really felt like his memories, not his stories. An important sound would be remembered first, then the rest of the story. Black outs and sounds fading out at emotionally trying moments. Fuzzy audio or blurry video. All of these artistic decisions worked extremely well and made the movie much more personal to the viewer. The acting was very well done and I enjoyed it the entire time. The music also fit snugly with the mood.

Like I said, the second story about Dito coming back home felt worthless, and was especially disappointing since Robert Downey Jr. and Rosario Dawson were billed so high. Nothing physically happened at his return, nor did any emotion or sentiment that wasn't already previously expressed get uncovered. Luckily, it did not take up much of the movie. Sometimes the editing style irked me, even though I understand that that's probably how he remembered it. The shots were pretty mediocre and uninspired. I hated the font choice and usage. Some scenes felt really pointless (in the past too, not just the present). What I really hated was when he tried to copy Spike Lee and have the characters talk to the camera about "who they are." What pissed me off about it most was not that it was straight-up copying, but that it wasn't even necessary. It added nothing to the movie and only cheapened it. Overall though, I really enjoyed watching this movie and recommend it if this sounded interesting to you.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0473488/

Transformers (2007)

3/5

Transformers was a really, really fun movie. It's a summer blockbuster action movie that delivers for the entire two and a half hours. The special effects and the fights just blew me away. Some of the scenes were absolutely hilarious and had me laughing and smiling. Even though the movie was long, it was varied enough in content and mood to keep you interested and entertained. I especially loved the shout-out to Bay's earlier movie, where a kid runs around with a camera shouting, "This is so much better than Armageddon!" Also, I hear fans of the original cartoons were very pleased with how it turned out. The music was excellent and kept your blood pumping strong. The multiple storylines weave together really well.

As expected, the dialogue was extremely corny the entire time. The acting was awful. There were a ton of minor characters that were worthless (the hackers), along with subplots that were worthless (sending out a code while trapped inside). It could have easily been a much tighter, better-acted, better-written two hour movie if they had tried a little harder. Also, the main actress was pretty hot, I guess, but her face was really weird. Most of the scenes went on for too long and, at two and a half hours, the movie definitely overstayed its welcome. Although it never really got to the point where it was boring, I definitely felt some of the scenes to be quite tedious and tiring. Some of the fights were too short and there wasn't as big of a climax as I expected there to be; also, some were really confusing because of how it was shot and it was hard to tell what was going on. Also, I didn't like how the Transformers were so alien; I really didn't like their new designs. Anyway, if this movie ever interested you or you thought it might be good, go watch it, because you will not be disappointed.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0418279/

The Lives of Others (2006)

4/5

The Lives of Others is a suspense drama about surveillance in Eastern Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall. It follows agent XX/7 as he listens in on the lives of right-wing playwright Georg Dreyman and his wife and actress Christa-Maria Sieland. The movie is excellent, but did not live up to my (somewhat high) expectations. I liked how it conveyed the emotional connection and almost unstoppable attraction between the viewer and the subject, although the metaphor does not extend very well into the actual film audience and the film itself, which I was hoping it would. The ending is surprisingly tender. The extent of XX/7's sacrifice for these people he knows so intimately yet must forever remain anonymous to was unexpected and quite moving. The cinematography was crisp, the camera movements fluid, and the editing natural. The acting and music were also good, although the dialogue and the script as a whole seemed to be trying a bit too hard to make a point.

There were also some aspects I didn't like. The first is that some parts of the movie were extremely confusing. I don't know if it was bad directing, bad subtitles, or simply that the characters' actions meant more than I saw, but I definitely missed some explanations and motivations for events in the middle of the movie. Many scenes seemed superfluous and some parts in the beginning and middle were a bit slow. There is a very bizarre scene near the beginning involving a very full-bodied prostitute, which I really did not understand at all. Also, there is a lot of talking, which means for those who don't understand German, there is a lot of reading. Overall, a very good movie and recommended to anyone who might be interested.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0405094/

Sicko (2007)

4/5

What makes me appreciate Sicko as more than a simple documentary on the American health care system is that its subject matter is in dire need of being discussed--it is both timely and topical. After taking INST 203 last semester and being exposed to all the benefits and deficits that come with our health care system, I've started thinking a lot more on the issue. And the fact of the matter is that we need to make it a national priority. Sicko, as a movie and not merely a springboard for cocktail party conversation, was quite effective. There were funny parts that kept the movie from being overly depressing and very emotional parts as well, which grounded the movie in reality. The first half of the movie I found myself fighting with facts I had learned, but the last thirty minutes or so hit you on an emotional level, where facts don't mitigate these real peoples' problems. Unlike Fahrenheit 9/11, it ended on a serious note and not a funny one--you leave the movie thinking that this is a matter that can be improved on, not something you can just laugh away and ignore. So while this movie is far from perfect, I am glad he made it and recommend it to anyone and everyone.

The movie does have a surplus of problems too. The first is that it is made by Michael Moore. He carries with him a lot of baggage and hate because of his earlier movies, and unfortunately a lot of people are not going to see this movie simply because he made it. Going in, you already know it's going to be a biased, pointed attack and not an exposé showing both sides, facts, and solutions. Which irritated me a lot. It begged for sympathy by first showing the victims of the HMOs and their health coverage denials. It claimed that the US was one of the least healthiest nations in the world, even though it pays the most for health care. It showed the perfect universal health care of Britain and France and their longer-living, healthier patients. But it ignores so much that it's almost insulting to the viewer. I don't think Europe's health rating would be as high if they had to deal with AIDS from African countries and TB in east Asian countries in equal quantities as the typical English and French diseases. And that is what the US health system must deal with every day. Being the heterogeneous melting pot that we are, the number of diseases people need treated are huge compared to the relatively small number in the homogeneous European populations. He ignores the benefits to the US health care system (we are one of the top nations when it comes to preventative medicine), but goes out of his way to show that other nations also do similar things (he always mentions when another nation has preventative health care).

And the movie gets very repetitive; we see the "perfect" Canadian system, then the "perfect" British system, the "perfect" French system, and then even the ridiculously sugar-coated "perfect" Cuban system. We get the point. And I don't think any of us are naive enough to think that their systems are perfect, even though they do have good qualities that our system lacks. The movie even feels repetitive when they have the victims tell their stories; there are just so many that each additional one adds nothing to the table except increase the number. What also bugged me a little was the use of archival footage and sixties-style songs, although they were kind of funny. Despite this movie's problems, I think it is one that must be watched and talked about and brought to the forefront of the political realm, because a change is necessary in the American health care system.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0386032/