Reign Over Me (2007)

4/5

Mike Binder's Reign Over Me is an emotionally satisfying if not deeply complex movie. The story follows the relationship between former college roommates Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle) and Charlie Fineman (in a surprisingly competent performance by Adam Sandler), a man whose life was turned upside down after his entire family died in the September 11 attacks. The story is simple, predictable, but heartfelt. The diverse panoply of characters was intriguing, but I felt it distracted too much from the emotional crux of the story. I really loved the music choices; they were effective without being overpowering. I especially loved BJ Novak's small role, although it was vastly overshadowed by Donald Sutherland's cameo. The cinematography was beautiful, but I hated the editing--too many fades that ruined the pacing and completely took me out of the movie. Even so, I suggest you check it out if you saw the trailer or a commercial or read this review and got interested in it; I doubt you'll be disappointed.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0490204/

Idiocracy (2006)

2/5

Idiocracy is a stupid and terrible movie. I don't know how I convinced myself to watch it. It envisions the future as literally the dumbest time period of man's evolution ever. And it succeeds. The story was predictable, the characters shallow, and the humor, unfortunately, at the level of the citizens in this "idiocracy." Why would I laugh at that? Despite the movie being terrible, I did like the vision of the future, where advertising is everywhere and stupid people who reproduce more take over the world. It's a much smarter premise than the movie can deliver on. Please don't ever watch this movie. Kyle, you are wrong. It is not funny--it is awful.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

No Country for Old Men (2007)

5/5

Watching this movie again, after contemplating it for half a year, I am struck by how much I remember. How every single scene in my memory matches perfectly what I was watching on screen today. Every frame is burned in my brain. The story allegedly focuses on a cowboy who, upon finding a stash of heroin and two million dollars in cash, is chased by a ruthless killer who will stop at nothing to retrieve the money. But to say that is what the movie is about is to deny it depth. It is not about a specific story set in a specific place and time, but about the darkness in man, the descent of society, and how we are helpless to prevent our own downfall. Aside from the pure thrill rush of seeing such a flawlessly-crafted movie, its insight into humanity will ensure its place in the annals of film history.

No Country for Old Men is the latest by the Coen brothers, who are known for their ability to remold every genre and inject humor into even the darkest of situations. The first time I saw this movie, I don't think I ever laughed. Or smiled. I was too scared to. In terms of suspense, this movie outshines even The Silence of the Lambs. But there are so many humorous moments to even out the bleak, soulless remainder of the movie. What the Coens have achieved is an atmosphere that is completely unique; they have put us in a world that is completely their own. We have no way of predicting what will happen next or how the movie will end because we have never set foot in a world quite like this one.

Technically, there is not a single misstep or error. Every composition and camera movement is accomplished with such purpose and precision. There is something tranquil and calming about the way they shoot the barren landscapes, terrifying and tense about the dark hotels and pooling blood. The editing is pristine, and its role extends past mere function into thematics. In the Coens' refusal to show certain events we consider essential, we realize the true essence of the movie. The acting by Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem is spot-on, but Tommy Lee Jones's portrayal of Ed Tom Bell is absolutely spellbinding. He quite literally becomes his character, emanating his very being without needing to speak a single line. A shift in his weight or a sluggish turn and we know more about him than any words could tell. That is not to say the dialogue is unnecessary--it is brilliant and profound, unnerving and unforgettable. At the end of this movie, you will sit there stunned. And you will remember it for a long time to come.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0477348/

The Good Shepherd (2006)

4/5

It's been awhile since I saw a movie where I didn't think about how I was going to write the review while I was still watching it. Or look at the time. This movie is engaging from the start, entrancing in every aspect. Loosely based on real events and real people during the 50's and 60's as the CIA was being formed, the plot sucks in the attentive viewer and keeps them breathless the entire time. It's been advertised as a spy thriller, but in reality it's a thinking man's drama. It is meditative. It asks questions and pretends no answers.

I was impressed by the acting (especially Matt Damon's morally ambiguous protagonist), although some characters seemed extraordinarily flat and poorly cast. (I was particularly disappointed at Robert De Niro's and Angelina Jolie's relatively limited screen time.) I found the pacing nearly flawless, although ironically it also felt like some scenes were pointless or shoddily constructed. Most of the dialogue was unnecessarily convoluted and deceptive, to the point where the audience loses track of what people say and mean or pretend to say and mean. Also, I thought there were a couple unexplained events and/or plot holes, whichever you want to call them. All these negative aspects seem to point towards it having a lower score, but the movie is more than the sum of its parts. It's truly an experience, and one not to be missed.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0343737/

Pierrot le fou (1965)

2/5

Wow. This movie makes absolutely no sense. At all. Well, I understood that there are two lovers on the run from arms dealers, but that's about it. Let me try to recreate the movie for you in equally abstract terms: a baby boy wearing a pink wedding dress vomits Legos on the ground as a German businessman walks by, causing him to trip and fall upwards into the sky. To me, it seems that Godard's motives have shifted. Instead of experimenting new ways to generate a coherent theme/emotion, he is experimenting for the sake of novelty. His decisions seem less like educated guesses and more like random shots in the dark. Perhaps this movie tries to bridge the gap between experimental and narrative film, but to me it doesn't succeed. Each is worsened by the other's presence. Additionally, it is technically subpar, as most of his films are. If I didn't know it was by Godard, I would be pointing out "mistake" after "mistake," which only goes to show how oblique his experimental techniques have gotten. Sound, editing, cinematography--all awful.

The only saving grace this movie has is its humor. Much like Family Guy, extremely unnecessary, inappropriate, outrageous scenes occur every so often that make you crack up. I don't even know how funny the scenes are; they're merely out of place. I suppose the movie is a necessity for Godard fans, but I have no idea why.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0059592/

Wordplay (2006)

3/5

I love crosswords, so I loved this movie. Despite all my bashings, which I will do throughout the course of this review, I enjoyed myself thoroughly and recommend it to anyone at all who enjoys a good crossword puzzle. It is funny and enlightening throughout, as it takes us into the perspective of the creator, the editor, and the solver. That being said, this movie has more than its fair share of flaws. First of all, it's shot in SD, not HD, so it looks terrible. Second, you can see the filmmakers scurrying around in the background setting up cameras for the final tournament; terribly distracting. So really, just terribly terrible technically. A couple of the stories and talks seemed extended or out of nowhere, as if just to fill time and make it feature length. The editing was subpar, as I could hear every audio cut from different takes/times, but the special effects were amazing, specifically the filling in of the spaces on the puzzle. Overall, very enjoyable but cinematically lacking (kind of like Karl Rove, I Love You, although that movie was better than this one).

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0492506/

Paris, je t'aime (2006)

4/5

Paris, je t'aime consists of 18 stories all set in Paris that discuss some form of love. Some of the films intermingle those two requirements, but a lot of them don't. Being a compilation of so many different filmmakers, naturally some will be better than others. This movie has its fair share of bad apples, but also good apples and amazing apples, which made the overall experience really enjoyable. My favorites were by the Coen brothers (Tuileries), Alfonso Cuaron (Parc Monceau), and Alexander Payne (14e arrondissement). Close seconds belong to Tom Tykwer (Faubourg Saint-Denis), Oliver Schmitz (Place des fêtes), Sylvain Chomet (Tour Eiffel), and Walter Salles (Loin du 16e). Most of the rest were decent, and some were merely adequate, but Christopher Doyle's Port de Choisy (Chinatown) stands as far and away my least favorite of them all. And this seems to be the consensus that most people come to after seeing the film, but the great thing about this movie is that there are so many different stories you're almost bound to love one and like most of the others. After you're done you get a wonderful patchwork of emotions and ideas about what Paris is like ... and what love is like. This is by far the best compilation work I've ever seen and is definitely worth a watch. Think of it as a good Love Actually.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0401711/

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007)

4/5

Julian Schnabel's The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is a remarkably moving piece. It details the true story of Elle editor Jean-Dominique Bauby, who suffered a stroke at 42 that resulted in locked-in syndrome. Fully conscious but only able to blink his left eye, he dictated a book that forms the basis for this movie.

The acting by all parties was stellar. The emotions Bauby goes through during the movie are fully realized, even though most of the movie is shown in first-person view and he cannot move or talk. Schnabel uses internal monologue to depict grief, anger, and even happiness at times. Though a somewhat depressing topic by nature, the consistent humor helps evolve Bauby's character and generate empathy. The cinematography was consistently crisp and beautiful and the editing allowed for a precise and measured pacing of events. The script was phenomenal as well, extremely touching and poignant.

However, there were some things about the movie I didn't really like. For example, there were a lot of random shots of nature. Though evocative, it made the movie seem more like a creative endeavor than a story about a man's incredible journey dealing with a terrible disease and for some reason I feel it does less justice to his struggle. Additionally, being told mostly in first-person made some parts both tedious and annoying. We were forced to go through the same things he went through, which can be quite taxing on an audience. (I was not a big fan of him waking up slightly drugged up.) Though it probably took him a lot longer than two minutes to form a sentence, having it exist as two minutes of the movie created boredom and disinterest in the audience instead of the frustration he must have experienced by being unable to speak. While I commend the idea of putting us in his shoes, I don't think it translated as well from concept to execution. Still, despite these minor hang-ups, the film is exceptional and well worth watching.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0401383/

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007)

3/5

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead is a flawlessly realized melodrama thriller, but the technical mastery Sidney Lumet has over the medium does not save the movie from its absolutely ridiculous story. It is about two brothers who need money; naturally they plot a robbery of their own parents' jewelry store. Something goes wrong, and the rest of the movie deals with the aftereffects of their grievous error in judgment. By the end of the movie, when everyone's life had spiraled wildly out of control and every character has made irreversible mistakes, I got up and left the theater in a hurry. Why? Because it was so spectacularly unbelievable. And I mean Snakes on a Plane unbelievable, accentuated even more so by the relative normalcy that preceded it. The characters morph from seemingly intelligent men to brainless psychopaths. These characters are not real; they are preposterous caricatures. I cannot fathom their thought processes or their motivations. But apparently other people could.

If you can deal with the single hang-up that I had about the movie (namely the poppycock masquerading as characters and plot), you will probably fall in love with it. Because the movie is technically brilliant. Sidney Lumet really is at a high point cinematically (albeit an extreme low point fictionally). The nonlinear storytelling was powerful, adding depth and tension to a rather simple story. It tantalizes you by giving you what you want in measured amounts, like a calculating drug dealer. I guess that's not a great analogy, but it works. The acting is awesome. They really make the insane characters seem insane. But seriously, the emotions on display were raw and real, and props go out to all the actors. I hope you see it if you find it interesting, because it seems I'm in the minority regarding my disbelief of characters and plot. Be your own judge.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0292963/