The Conformist (1970)

4.9/5

Bernardo Bertolucci's The Conformist is a visual masterpiece. The compositions and camera movements are utilized with such purpose and precision--such confidence in their meaning--that it transcends simple descriptions of events and becomes lyrical poetry. The breathtaking cinematography is made more impressive by the incredible set and costume designs. All of this merely provides the framework over which the exquisite acting can play out. As the movie starts, we are at once made aware of the striking editing style. The non-linear complexity pulls you in, sparking your curiosity and then feeding you answers, and keeps you engaged as a participant in the movie. The structure follows a simple arc in characterization and mood that a chronological retelling would have completely missed out on. The film's themes, while enigmatic, are far from indecipherable. Their importance lies in their timeless relevance while their draw lies in their subtle ubiquity.

The plot follows Clerici and his attempts to be normal, both socially and sexually. He joins the Fascist party while they reign over the country and condemns it immediately after Mussolini's fall. The brutal and shockingly sudden about-face at the finale is by far the most haunting image in this film for me. Perhaps my favorite line in the movie is uttered by Italo, Clerici's blind friend, after being asked what normal is: "A normal man is one who turns his head to see a beautiful woman's bottom." I could go on and on quoting this movie, but why read a transcript when you could simply watch the movie and experience it for yourself? I am still remembering scenes in the movie as if they are just now happening.

There were some problems with the movie, however. I actually thought some of the shots felt too set-up and composed, shedding off the poetic realism and with it the subtlety that intrigued me. The plot could sometimes get a bit convoluted and crowded with seemingly pointless scenes, although most of the time their beauty and meaning find you over time. Also, there seemed to be some sound issues of the kind that usually mar student films, not major features. At any rate, none of these negatives are significant in any considerable fraction, and should not dissuade you from seeing this unforgettable piece of art.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0065571/

Smoke (1995)

3/5

Smoke is a mildly pleasing film with a mildly pleasing script that gives great actors mildly pleasing characters to play. It started off with potential, and every so often it would approach that potential and then pull back a little, as if afraid to take a risk. My favorite part was near the beginning, where William Hurt's character flips through a book of photographs taken at the same time every day of the same place as Harvey Keitel talks over the images. It was absolutely beautiful. The rest had snippets of genius, but nothing fulfilling.

The movie is a slice-of-life intertwining tale of the many people who interact with Harvey Keitel inside of and outside of his cigar and tobacco shop. Because there is no real main conflict, you are just pulled along, waiting for the next thing to happen without any expectations. Quite frankly, it gets a little boring. The editing sometimes felt amateurish and sometimes felt pretentious. Though I really liked some of the cinematography, most of it was rather bland and watery. All in all, it's not bad, but there's no real point in going out of your way to watch it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0114478/

Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

3/5

Live Free or Die Hard is pretty much the same movie as Shoot 'Em Up in terms of ridiculous, unrelenting action and corny, cheeseball comedy. And it works. Live Free or Die Hard looks a lot prettier though, and the script is more realistic (and by extension more ludicrous in its attempt to be realistic and therefore funnier overall). There was also a random woman that kept popping up in scenes as some FBI guy's aide and just look around at stuff, including the camera filming her, which I thought was hilarious. However, I HATED the editing. I could tell every single time they cheated by dubbing over audio and splicing in video as a band-aid and it pissed me off! I prefer the original Die Hard, but this is good senseless fun as well.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0337978/

The Kingdom (2007)

3/5

I got to see a special advanced screening of Peter Berg's The Kingdom with Sameer, Jason, and Jed last night. I was really excited about it because of the director, the producer, and the cast--and it lived up to my expectations as an action movie. But it should have stayed in that realm. It tried too hard to be a serious, Syriana-esque look at the oil situation in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. You could sense Berg's insecurity venturing into that area, because every time he strayed from action/comedy, he beat into your head just what exactly was going on and what it meant. Please, trust your audience or they won't trust you.

As an action movie, it's stellar. Most of the time I was engaged and excited, but it was in the last 30 minutes that Berg shows his true colors: that final action scene was almost unbearably tense, on par with Mann's best works. The quality extends to the comedic element as well, thanks mostly to Jason Bateman's character (although the others have their moments too). And I absolutely loved the introductory credit sequence; it is one of the best I've seen in any movie recently.

And yet, everything else is absolutely filthy, like a pungent, noxious odor or being raped to death by a horse. The camerawork was almost as bad as The Bourne Supremacy. I'm all for equal rights, but please stop letting people with Parkinson's operate the camera. Both the thought and actual execution of artificially creating movement made me want to throw up. Another thing that pissed me off was subtitling the name/position of characters, once more adding fictitious complexity and marring an otherwise excellent piece. From the overbearing melodramatic music combined with slow-motion walking so we know we're supposed to feel sad to the back-and-forth finale to make sure we understand the parallelism, everything screams out obvious, blunt, heavy-handed filmmaking.

But don't let that stop you from seeing it. This has some of the best action you will ever see this year and keeps your heart pounding hard throughout. Look past the faults and watch it when it comes out this Friday. That is, if you're interested in any of the things I was excited about when I went in. It's worth the sledgehammer filmmaking techniques.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0431197/

The Pervert's Guide to Cinema (2006)

3/5

The Pervert's Guide to Cinema is a fun excursion into the psychoanalytical world of films, using mostly Hitchcock's works, Lynch's films, several by Tarkovsky and Kieslowski, along with clips here and there of some others. It is sometimes hilarious, often thought-provoking, and always interesting. The best thing I can say about this movie is that it really engages you and hopes to get you as excited about cinema as he is. At 2.5 hours, however, it is about 50 minutes too long. I came in knowing there were three parts, and before we even got to the third part, I thought to myself that this movie should wrap itself up right about now. Another complaint is that he kept cutting to a background of himself in front of a completely white background, which really hurt my eyes, at least 20 or 30 times in the movie. One other cool thing I commend is that he would place himself in famous scenes. It was funny at first, but kind of lost its meaning halfway through. I did like the effort though. But the best part about the movie is Zizek's accent. This is definitely worth watching for any fans of the aforementioned directors, or for any real film fans, although be warned that he spoils the plot of some movies, so go in prepared.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0828154/

Eastern Promises (2007)

4/5

David Cronenberg's Eastern Promises took me by storm. I was entirely underwhelmed by A History of Violence, so I came into the theater wary. But his new movie blew me away. In addition to a compelling and engrossing plot, believable and realistic characters portrayed through precise acting, it has quite possibly the best fight scene I've ever seen put to film. The cinematography is brilliant, as is the set design, costuming, and make-up. You cannot turn your eyes away from this film. The story unfolds effortlessly and draws us in with perfect pacing, building with twists and turns until its unforgettable climax. That's what she said.

A number of things bothered me though. First, the subtitles. Sometimes they subtitled English dialogue, or sentences spoken half in English and half Russian. This should not be so. Second, the graphic violence. Most of the time it was gratuitous, by which I mean excessive and unnecessary. There is one scene where a dead man's fingers get cut off, which isn't particularly gruesome, but it occurs after the scene has wound down and ended. This ties in with my third complaint: the editing. Every single shot and scene went on just a half second too long. It made the acting and dialogue sometimes seem stilted and staged as shots set up and rest on characters during dialogue instead of seamlessly transitioning between them. Fourth, the ending shot, which would have been cool if The Godfather movies had never been made. All in all, however, these are mostly small, nitpicky aspects and did not affect my enjoyment of the movie. What did affect my enjoyment of the movie was the idiotic family who sat behind us and treated the movie theater as their own living room, kicking seats and discussing banal topics and generally ruining the mood and ambiance. Cocksuckers.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0765443/

3:10 to Yuma (2007)

4/5

3:10 to Yuma is one of the most interesting westerns to come out since Unforgiven. It follows the story of rancher Dan Evans (Christian Bale) as he escorts the notorious outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) to a prison train, the 3:10 to Yuma. The cast was well-picked and the acting by Crowe and Bale was nearly flawless (and I traditionally do not appreciate their acting). The storyline entranced me from beginning to end. I kept trying to figure out what would happen and kept finding myself unexpectedly surprised. I loved how nearly every character got introduced and eliminated in measured amounts--very fitting of the genre. The character evolution of everyone except Ben Wade was mesmerizing. The landscapes were beautifully shot, the editing perfectly well-paced. And 3:10 to Yuma has an absolutely amazing score.

I really disliked the character of Ben Wade. Everyone else was really interesting and fascinating, but Ben Wade was just disappointing. I got really excited as the film progressed, because it seemed as if he was actually getting more and more evil. What most movies that try to humanize bad guys do is show his evil side first and then his human side at the end. This movie started out by flipping that, slowly increasing his brutality as time went on, but in the end it flipped back to his sympathetic side. Didn't really like that. Also, it kind of went crazy at the end and I didn't buy the shift in Wade's character. It felt like he did stuff out of character to fit the plot. How disappointing in an otherwise stellar movie. I highly recommend it though if you like westerns, because maybe you will take a different message out of the character of Ben Wade.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0381849/

The Boys of Baraka (2005)

3/5

The Boys of Baraka is a documentary about at-risk inner-city preteens from Baltimore who get chosen to attend a special school in Africa to improve their education. The film evinces a sobering reality while maintaining a hopeful and uplifting undertone. It had me on the verge of tears several times (although did not ever push me over the edge). The music is extremely well-done and the editing wasn't bad. The directors chose great characters to follow: each one chose a different path at the end of the film, which made for a feeling that the scenario was fully explored.

Frankly, some of the camerawork sucked. A lot of key, important scenes were not filmed and the events were only revealed in conversation or interviews after the fact. This normally wouldn't be a complaint except that I've seen superior documentaries get this kind of information on film and show us. I didn't like how some of the characters received subtitles, and only some of the time. I could easily understand the subtitled parts, so it almost seemed kind of denigrating to treat their speech as another language. Also, there are bunch of boring and unrelated parts. That sucks. It's interesting and I recommend it if you are interested in it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0444608/

The Limey (1999)

4/5

The Limey is smart, unique, and innovative. Soderbergh displays his true artistry in this film, a film that is stylistically divergent from every other revenge thriller. Terence Stamp plays a father fresh out of a British prison who goes to the States to discover the details of his daughter's "mysterious car accident." As with any movie based on this premise, it was not an accident, but murder. And he must kill the person responsible. The plot is nothing to write home about; the striking aspect is the style. Soderbergh pushes the envelope of common cinematic conventions like shot/counter-shot dialogue. People have a single conversation at different times, in different places, yet it feels natural and smooth because a consistent mood is maintained. The cinematography was unbelievably stunning and the editing was refreshingly new. The writing was simple yet effective. My favorite line: "There's one thing I don't understand. The thing I don't understand is every motherfuckin' word you're saying." The most enduring line: "You tell him, you tell him I'm coming. Tell him I'm fucking coming!"

The beginning of the movie was quite confusing because of the stylistic choices. After a while, the style itself lost its power and grew a bit tiresome. The movie can be a bit too artsy, which can turn people off if they go in expecting a typical action movie, but I didn't mind it. What did bug me was the introduction of Peter Fonda's Terry Valentine. The use of dissolves made it look like a Calvin Klein ad. I found a lot of the acting stale and unrealistic (mostly by the women). There is a shot near the end that mirrors the opening shot, which I was really hoping they would close on. Unfortunately, they didn't.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0165854/

The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005)

4/5

The 40-Year-Old Virgin is an atypically smart take on a typically dumb comedy. It succeeds not because it generates more laughs, but because it generates more empathy. While I actually found most of the characters shallow and stereotypical, the titular role is surprisingly fleshed out. Carell's perfectly nuanced performance was amazing. I was blown away by a simple yet necessary line of dialogue he utters near the end that belies the simplicity and stupidity of the plot: "I got this when I was in second grade! Do you know how hard it is for a kid to not open that?" It is by far my favorite line in the movie. A close second comes from Seth Rogen's character: "You wait for it to grow into a plant... and then you fuck the plant."

The movie works well throughout. It is funny and it has heart, but it also has problems. Many scenes were side stories thrown in for comedic effect. And though it didn't usually happen, some jokes fell absolutely flat. The flashback/montages were stylistically jarring. And the story jumped around a lot. Because of this, the runtime was a bit long, which made the obligatory "discovery to argument to hatred to realization of true love" at the end seem tedious instead of tender. But again, being a huge Office fan, I love seeing the actors cameo in minor roles. I saw Knocked Up and enjoyed it; I think I may have enjoyed this movie more though, so I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0405422/

Shoot 'Em Up (2007)

3/5

Shoot 'Em Up is everything you'd expect from a movie with a title named after a video game genre. I enjoyed every moment of this movie and cracked up the entire time. Like Hot Fuzz, it spoofs the ludicrous situations that appear in action movies by creating even more ludicrous situations. They took the time and effort to come up with some truly ingenious fight scenes. It is a laugh a minute, with one hilariously impossible scenario following another. There are numerous references and in-jokes for audience members who know the actors and their previous films--which I loved--but they weren't carried far enough or made obvious enough, as they were in Hot Fuzz. In fact, the more I write this review, the more I realize that this is really just a worse version of Hot Fuzz. It exists solely to spoof and so does not have a life or energy of its own, and will thus fade into obscurity instead of remain in the minds of its viewers like Hot Fuzz.

The plot is obviously worthless, and explaining the overly convoluted plot actually gets in the way of the good stuff, like bad jokes (eat your vegetables) and preposterous action sequences. And some of the dialogue was actually too bad to the extent that you couldn't even laugh at it. Much of the movie felt uneven. The characters were laughable, as intended, but their absurdity still seemed forced. At 80 minutes it was a good length, but still extended maybe 15 minutes past what I would consider the perfect length for this movie before the audience gets tired of its antics. All in all, this is a very enjoyable romp through an otherworld, and highly highly recommended if you just wanna turn off your brain and watch some senselessly cool crap.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0465602/

In the Company of Men (1997)

4/5

Neil LaBute's directorial debut is a ferociously brutal black comedy. It follows Chad and Howard who devise a plan to ruin an innocent woman's romantic future to get payback for all the times women have hurt them. Much like Closer, the characters' actions are almost too cruel to be real. But it is funny--hilarious most of the time--and provides great insight into society, male female interactions, and the drive for success. The acting is fantastic, as well as most of the dialogue. It turns very psychological very quickly: you never really know who's playing who. The thematics match well with interesting and effective cinematic techniques. For example, the intertitles announcing the week number with jungle music in the background work on numerous levels. They pace the film and excite the audience as the piece builds to a climax; the choice of music is also essential in creating the audience's subconscious association of a workplace and all social interactions as a jungle, where men and women return to primal urges and instinctive self-preservation mechanisms. The decision to make the woman be deaf and how it plays out in the final scene make the movie smarter than it looks.

But it looks awful. The compositions were forced, the colors were garish, and the camera movements were either nonexistent and unexciting or minimalist and uneventful. The dialogue sometimes strayed into inane babble about nothing, which I guess could stand as a statement about men and their egos, but it merely feels misplaced in its usage in this film. I felt some of the scenes at the end, with characters' lives spinning wildly out of control, was a bit exaggerated and unbelievable. A lot of the mannerisms, clothing, and interior designs really date the piece, although it's not severe enough to distract you too much. Anyway, highly recommended if you want a great foray into male-female interactions and the brutality that humans are capable of.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0119361/

Edward Scissorhands (1990)

4/5

Edward Scissorhands is another one of those "weird" Tim Burton movies. But it is also incredible entertaining. Burton is able to create this world so vividly, from the first frame to the last, that you really feel like you are there. I love the pastel houses inhabited by pastel women. I love the shrub and ice sculptures. And who can forget the man with scissors as hands? Everything in this movie is so distinct that you cannot forget it. And it made me laugh the entire time. My favorite character was by far Alan Arkin's father. The way he thinks and talks is simply amazing. I don't even know how to describe it; just watch it. Winona Ryder's daughter was literally angelic; she looked beautiful in this movie, and I now understand Pooya's obsession for her. Danny Elfman's signature Burton-esque music is in full force here--definitely one of his best soundtracks.

I hated the stupid framework for the movie. Why do we need someone to be telling us a story? Tim Burton should be telling us the story with his visuals, not an 80-year-old Winona to her granddaughter in flashback mode because the dumb kid asked her where snow comes from. Grow some balls and tell the story yourself, Timmy. A lot of the special effects are cheesy, along with the characters' outfits and hairstyles. The movie feels quite a bit dated. I don't know if it was the TV screen distorting the anamorphic edges or what, but it seemed like the entire movie was shot with a fish-eye lens. It may not be the movie's fault, but it was extremely distracting. The rest of the movie was quite good, but let's face it: you go to a Tim Burton movie to check out the brand new world he has thought up, and this is one you will never forget.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0099487/