The Thing (1982)

4/5

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

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

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

This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006)

3/5

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

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

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

Lust, Caution (2007)

4/5

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

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

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

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

Ocean's Thirteen (2007)

4/5

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

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

La Femme Nikita (1990)

3/5

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

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

Bringing Out The Dead (1999)

3/5

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

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

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

Eve's Bayou (1997)

4/5

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

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

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

The Triplets of Belleville (2003)

3/5

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

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

Sweet and Lowdown (1999)

2/5

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

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

Chasing Amy (1997)

4.9/5

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

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

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

Peeping Tom (1960)

5/5

Michael Powell's Peeping Tom is a movie about a man named Mark Lewis, played brilliantly by Carl Boehm. It is a character study masquerading as a psychological horror movie. The film begins with a brutal murder, from the killer's point of view, behind a camera lens. Later that night, he watches that same footage, just as we have watched it. We are immediately implicated as viewers and voyeurs--we feel the same thrill that he does. The rest of the movie attempts to explain how we got to that point; it asks us to empathize with him, and it succeeds. It is unsettling how little time it takes. The story unfolds effortlessly. I was absorbed from the first frame to the last. With no way of predicting what would happen, I no longer tried. I simply waited in fear of the events to come. And the finale is so utterly haunting that I do not think I will forget it any time soon.

Technically, cinematically, it is a masterpiece. The editing feels natural, the camerawork fluid. Subtle choices in composition and movement contribute to both mood and analysis. Such a union of art and entertainment is what determines a true master director. Powell is the equal of Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Scorsese, and other such icons. How I had not seen any of his works until now is a mystery even to me. This is a phenomenal film.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0054167/

Thief (1981)

2/5

What I love about all of Michael Mann's movies is the mood, the sense of cool. Even if you have no idea what's going on, you always get a feeling of just how awesome the people you're watching are. The second quality is the acting--Mann consistently manages to bring out the best in his actors. That's all this movie has. Oh, and good music, although it's heavily dated with its 80's techno synth rock.

The movie attempts to combine heist movie with family drama. It doesn't work because the tension is lost with the dramatic punctuations and the drama never gets fully explored because the heist elements remove a sense of realism. The plot is convoluted and unclear; you have to pay extremely close attention to the dialogue to know what's going on. Even then, you might still have trouble because a lot of the time there are no establishing shots (in the adoption agency, for example). The editing is awful. Scenes go on for way too long, often without introduction and ending suddenly. The sound work is even worse; it reminded me of my own movies. The dialogue is hard to understand as a result, which makes the plot confusing as well. And that's not something you want in a professionally-produced feature film.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0083190/