Nayakan (1987)

2/5

According to Schickel and Corliss, Mani Ratnam's Nayakan is supposedly one of Time's ALL-TIME 100 Movies. And Crash is supposedly the best picture of 2006, so you never know. Just as Criterion is wrong about House of Games, so are the Time reviewers when it comes to Nayakan. This is a terrible, terrible excuse for a movie. The plot concerns Velu, who witnesses his father's murder as a young boy and grows up to become a mobster boss in the vein of Godfather meets Robin Hood. While it steals heavily from The Godfather (which I'll get into later), there are some interesting nuggets unique in this film that weren't stolen from better ones. These are few and far between, and instead what makes up the majority of the film is crap.

There were too many music/dancing interludes. I'll be the first to admit that I just don't get them; they are nothing but absolute wastes of time for me. They have nothing to do with the movie and make it 30 minutes longer. The music itself, which was good at first, quickly became overused and trite. While the acting could very rarely be good at times, more often than not it sounded fake and stilted. I feel uncomfortable judging the cinematography and sound, as I feel half of the fault is the DVD I have. However, I saw the only DVD version of it available in America, so I saw the same version you would be seeing. And with that in mind, the cinematography and sound SUCK. The concepts and ideas behind the camerawork were often valid, but in execution they just didn't work. Ever. It looked like it was shot on a handheld, miniDV camera, and perhaps it was a bootleg copy. I wouldn't be surprised.

The extent of the plagiarism of The Godfather makes me sick. Velu's family is attacked in his home, just like in the second Godfather. A series of murders are committed during a religious ceremony, just as there is in the first Godfather. There is even a murder where a man is garrotted in his car, and in his struggling, he breaks the windshield with his feet. Velu is asked by a man to punish young men who beat up and disfigured his daughter. This movie misses all the things that make the Godfather good, and instead imagines its qualities are in simple plot devices instead of subtlety and nuance. It's almost an insult to The Godfather to watch this film. If you have any respect for quality filmmaking, don't watch this movie.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0093603/

The Darjeeling Limited (2007)

4.9/5

The Darjeeling Limited, Wes Anderson's latest film, follows the antics of three brothers on a spiritual quest to rid themselves of the emotional baggage of their father's recent death and mother's disappearance. Like all of Anderson's films, there are moments of heartbreaking emotion, juxtaposed effortlessly to choke up any laughter still left in your throat after the uproarious scenes that immediately preceded them. Unlike his other movies, this back and forth was not as prevalent as before. Most of the time it was subtle, but what surprised me was the dialogue-free 10 minute stretch in the middle of the film as we breathlessly witness a suffocating moment and its indelible consequences. Its impact is profound, its inclusion necessary. The symbolism and themes presented by the movie, left open to the viewer for interpretation and application in their own lives, places this film above simple comedy.

In typical Anderson style, the quirky music is exceptional, a perfect companion to the texture of the rest of the piece. The acting matches this bizarre mood, filling out the fictional characters with real humans. I was fascinated by the camerawork and Anderson's insistence--almost an obsessive need--to shoot at precise, 90 degree angles. His quick sideways tracking/panning made it impossible to see anything between the absolute cardinals, a sentiment echoed in his refusal to show transition shots during editing. He made some cinematography choices I disagreed with, however. I have an intense dislike for zooms (even when used as effectively as in Barry Lyndon), and their overabundance here dismayed me. He also overdid the slow-motion shots; if used half as often, they would have reached optimal impact. Still, these issues are relatively minor and easily overlooked. Behind The Royal Tenenbaums, this is probably Anderson's finest film to date.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0838221/

The Killing Fields (1984)

3/5

The Killing Fields is based on the true story of New York Times reporter Sydney Schanberg and his Pulitzer Prize-winning work on the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during the Vietnam conflict. The movie spans several years, with the majority of the film focused on trying to get his partner/friend/translator Dith Pran out of the communist-run country. There were some moments of nail-biting tension, some emotive scenes and arresting images, and some powerful performances. And that was about it. The music was so awesomely inappropriate that it almost undermined the entire movie. The film was magnificently overlong and terribly paced. Pretty much half the scenes served absolutely no purpose. And I didn't come out of the movie thinking I learned anything because it was so narrowly-envisioned; it wasn't anything but its own specific story. Still, if you are interested, it might be worth checking out; maybe you'll get more out of it than I did.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0087553/

La Bête humaine (1938)

4/5

Jean Renoir's La Bête humaine, or The Human Beast, is a stunning film in the noir tradition. Written by Emile Zola, the story follows a train engineer with an unexplained mental affliction (Jean Gabin) as he falls in love with the wife of a train station manager (Simone Simon). They meet following a murder committed out of irrational, violent love and that is how their own relationship unfolds. It is a dark film and there is surprisingly little levity, at least compared to Renoir's other works. The themes it explores are fantastic, but I'm a little puzzled by the choice to have Gabin's character mentally aberrant--it seems to counter the power of the "human" condition by singling him out as abnormal.

Renoir has always been technically advanced, and this film is no exception. Its age is easily forgotten; it still seems crisp and fresh after 70 years. Both the cinematography and editing were pristine--I absolutely loved the intro and ending sequences. I liked the acting, but was unimpressed by the characters themselves. Maybe back then they didn't seem as archetypal as they are now. Still, it is a highly recommended film for noir lovers and Renoir fanatics.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0029957/

Gone Baby Gone (2007)

4/5

Ben Affleck's directorial debut is self-assured and technically proficient. While not as incredible as American Beauty or Amores Perros, Gone Baby Gone is still a solid first effort. The story follows a private detective (Casey Affleck) in Boston hired to find a missing child. What starts as a simple premise quickly finds itself in the murky waters of moral ambiguity. As in all mysteries, this movie contains mystery, moments of tension, and a surprise ending. But its strongest contribution is that it forces us to ask ourselves what we would have done. For some it's an easier question than others.

I was impressed by the acting from all parties. We sense a lot of their backstories in subtle actions, not obvious dialogue--even the most shallow characters are portrayed with complexity. By far the most unexpected and impressive performance is Amy Ryan's depiction of the missing girl's drug-addled mother. She stole every single scene she was in. But even the best acting can't hide bland, blunt dialogue, which this movie had a surprising amount of. Still, the writing wasn't all that bad. The story was constantly fascinating, both in terms of plot and ethics.

Most of the problems in this movie lay in the editing. The story's two-part structure hurt the overall pacing of the film. The editing of each scene felt really jumpy, and I think Affleck overdid the grainy, two-second flashbacks. Also, the rapid-fire Boston accents (and even one Haitian accent) were difficult to follow and made the mystery even more confusing. Overall though, Gone Baby Gone is an intriguing film and succeeds in being much more than a simple police procedural.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0452623/

Rescue Dawn (2006)

3/5

Werner Herzog's Rescue Dawn is a fictionalized account of the true story of an American pilot shot down over Laos, taken to a POW camp, and eventually rescued during the Vietnam conflict. It's a premise we've all seen before many times over, and unfortunately it brings nothing new to the table. It's not a bad movie, but it's not a good one either. I hate movies like this, because you can't praise it or make fun of it. It just sits there. Everything technical is mundane and mediocre. Nothing stands out whatsoever. I can't recommend it, but if it's your cup of tea, it's your cup of tea.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0462504/

A Man for All Seasons (1966)

3/5

A Man for All Seasons tells the story of Thomas More and his refusal to acknowledge King Henry VIII's divorce from Catherine and marriage to Anne Boleyn. For some unexplained reason, the king wants--no, needs--his approval. And since he won't give it, they put him on trial for high treason and detate his cappa, as Michael Scott would put it. I was not a big fan of the movie. I couldn't get involved in the story, as none of the characters' actions or motivations were explained or even hinted at. The first half an hour bored me half to death--I could not even sate my desire to look at something interesting due to sparse set design and drab costuming.

Still, not all was bad. The cinematography and music were merely humdrum. And there was some good stuff. There were some tense scenes and a really powerful ending (slightly marred by a worthless voice-over afterwards). Paul Scofield's acting was quite magnificent. Though I disagree with his opinion and his steadfastness, I could still respect him. All in all, not recommended, but feel free to enjoy it if that's your bag.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0060665/

A Touch of Zen (1969)

2/5

King Hu's A Touch of Zen is an epic martial arts movie that needed to be whittled down from its 200-minute running time to 100 minutes. The plot is so convoluted that I won't get into it in this review, but suffice it to say that they should have gotten a continuity editor. Or several of them. The movie played like a serial novel with installments every 30 minutes in which mysteries are revealed to be bigger mysteries, bad guys are killed off so that more evil ones can take their place, and boring expository landscape shots take up at least 5 of those 30 minutes. I estimate that approximately 1/6 of this movie is footage of trees, rocks, or spider webs. Hu seemed to like shooting spider webs for some reason. He also liked shooting at night with limited to no lighting, which made half the movie an absolute pain to watch. He even shot a lot of the fight scenes at night, all of which were unconvincing and went on for far too long. I don't care how many good wuxia movies this inspired (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and House of Flying Daggers to name an obvious few), it's still not a good movie.

Though the storyline was excessively ludicrous, there were some good parts here and there. I especially liked the planning of the ghost trap, its execution, and its consequences. Unfortunately, this section was only 1/3 of the total movie. If it had ended it, I might have given A Touch of Zen a 3 or 4. Instead, it goes on for another hour so it could beat its Buddhist message into your head. Other aspects of the movie I liked were the music and, as contradictory as it sounds, the obnoxious, over-the-top acting. Despite the frequent failings of the cinematography, there were some truly beautiful shots peppering the 3+ hours. But these elements just aren't compelling enough when looking at the whole of the film to truthfully recommend it to anyone but wuxia history buffs.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0064451/

Kandahar (2001)

3/5

Kandahar's "plot" follows the Afghan-born Nafas on her journey to Kandahar to save her sister before she commits suicide. Yet it is not really a narrative piece of fiction, nor is it a documentary. Instead, it is a nontraditional combination of the two, for better or for worse. It overlays a fictitious plot on top of striking documentary visuals. There was no real acting to speak of; people seemed to just read scripts, unaware of the meaning behind the words they were saying. More than half the film depicts the tragic Afghan situation and not the "plot." The "plot" seems to have been constructed for the sole purpose of exposing such terrible conditions in Afghanistan. We see people robbed on the highway, women treated by doctors through a cloth and a "translator," and legless mine victims in Red Cross camps running on crutches to get first choice on parachuted prosthetics. That is where the power is, and that is where it should stay. This movie should be a documentary, not a fake docudrama. It's an informative, eye-opening movie that should be seen, but the narrative storyline was unwelcome and hurt the movie overall.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0283431/

Smiles of a Summer Night (1955)

4/5

Ingmar Bergman's Smiles of a Summer Night is a bit atypical considering his dark, religious oeuvre. Although the self-applied moniker of "romantic comedy" may be a bit of a stretch for contemporary audiences, it is more than apt considering his more brooding masterpieces. The plot follows a series of couples, their servants and maids, and the romantic complications they find themselves enmeshed in on a weekend outing at a summer house. As the plot progressed, I kept thinking how similar it was to The Rules of the Game (it even ends with a gunshot). There were also hints of Children of Paradise, especially in the same kind of confident filmmaking that comes with a complete mastery of the craft. Yet it's not quite as good as those two.

The acting and writing were all fully realized. The cinematography and editing were more than competent. None of the individual technical aspects stood out on their own, but rather served as a groundwork for the message. Yet the message seemed to be an inferior, muted version of the many themes present in The Rules of the Game. Most were spelled-out or of little value, almost as if Bergman didn't trust the audience as much as he does in his more serious pics. I wasn't sure what I got out of the movie when it ended--no greater realization of life and love and all that jazz. Also, much of the romance was verbal or intellectual; everyone's love was talked about, but rarely felt. He should stick to stark portraits of faith. Despite my disparaging remarks, I consider this film an entertaining, joyous, cinematically triumphant film.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0048641/

Atonement (2007)

4/5

Joe Wright's Atonement is an utterly captivating film. When the 130-minute movie ended, I didn't even realize all that time had passed. I assumed we were halfway through. The plot concerns a 13-year-old Briony Tallis in pre-war Britain who sees her sister Cecilia with their gardener Robbie at a fountain and misunderstands their encounter as a rough, unwanted sexual advance. From that incident, she misjudges his character--perhaps intentionally out of jealousy--and tells a lie that sends him to jail. Perhaps she thought it was the truth. The film leaves the characters and their motivations open to interpretation, which helps the story remain with the viewer. Robbie is given the choice to go to war or stay in prison, and so he enlists. The second half of the movie details his attempt to return from battle and rejoin Cecilia. As Briony grows older and more mature, she realizes the grievous results of her decision and tries to atone for it.

The camerawork and compositions were beautiful. There is an oft-talked about 5 minute tracking shot depicting the devastation of Dunkirk--one I felt was an unnecessary waste of time, but impressive nonetheless. The editing was exceptional. The movie backtracks several times and reveals the truth behind Briony's misinterpretations. It was slightly confusing at first, but quickly grew on me as an effective and engaging storytelling technique. I absolutely loved the music. It perfectly fit the mood every time, whether at a tense moment, a sensual one, or an emotional one. The acting was truly stunning. Realistic, subtle performances revealed layers of complexity in every character. Vanessa Redgrave delivered an unforgettable, riveting performance for the few minutes she was on screen.

Despite all these technical achievements, I wondered what the point of the film was. It's a simple story with the only universal themes being regret and atonement. The story is unbelievably far-fetched; it's all too coincidental and extreme to be real. But perhaps that is the purpose of romance movies. To be the world of fantasy where there exists true love, hope, and happiness. Unfortunately for me, I watch movies as movies. And during the entire movie, I kept thinking: "A Very Long Engagement is much better." And so it is, in just about every way. But Atonement is still a technically outstanding, entrancingly romantic film for anyone interested in it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0783233/

The Namesake (2006)

3/5

The Namesake is the sprawling tale of Ashoke and Ashima Ganguli as they move to America and raise a family. The movie was advertised as the story of their son Gogol and the pushes and pulls of both his American upbringing and Indian culture and tradition. He is in fact not the focus; rather it is about their entire family and the compromises that they must make living in two worlds. Sameer seems to have gotten more out of the movie than I did, likely because the story strikes a personal chord with him. Still, if one must be an Indian living in America to like this movie, then its audience pool is severely limited. I think it is a failing of the movie that I did not appreciate it more, as I know such a story can be more universal. Take My Big Fat Greek Wedding as an example; though it was drenched in Greek culture, most non-Westerners could relate to the kind of customs it depicted. Instead, this movie shows numerous Indian traditions without any attempt at explanation for non-Indians to understand or relate to. Oh well, at least there wasn't any song and dance in it.

The editing was a bit of a mixed bag for me. Most of the time I was disappointed by it, as it seemed to pick and choose random events in the lives of the Ganguli family. I never had a solid idea of where or when I was in the story. It would often shift abruptly to a different country or point in time, sometimes ten years in the future. What I did like about the editing was how the flashbacks were shown again in extended versions. It felt like a rite of passage; once we learned more about the family's growth in America, we got to witness more about their past. I liked the acting for the most part--Irfan Khan and Tabu stole the show as the parents Ashoke and Ashima. Kal Penn was decent, but neither complex nor subtle. I wasn't impressed with the writing, cinematography, or directing. I did like the music though. It's not a bad movie, but neither is it a good one ... unless perhaps you're an Indian living in America.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0433416/

Charlie Wilson's War (2007)

4/5

Charlie Wilson's War is definitely one of Mike Nichols's finest films. Though on the surface it is an entertaining romp through an extravagant Congressman's fight to stave off Russians in Afghanistan during the Cold War, look deeper and you will find a relevant and timely cautionary tale on how the US handles foreign affairs. It urges us to hold our congratulations and anger; we don't yet know the full consequences of our actions. What is the final result? "We'll see."

The most impressive part about this hilarious movie is the acting. Tom Hanks is perfectly fluid, matching suavity with intelligence. He fully embodies his lovable character. Philip Seymour Hoffman is my favorite though. With a grimy demeanor, his sarcasm manages to piss nearly everyone off. But it just made me love him more. I actually thought Julia Roberts's character was worthless. She seemed like a minor character that was artificially blown up to match the star power of the actress.

I really disliked the war/fighting footage. It looked cheesy and fake and it was almost entirely unnecessary. I wish it had been completely cut out. Despite my complaint with the editing, I still found the pacing phenomenal. I was constantly and consistently entertained. This is in large part due to the wonderful writing--dialogue is something Nichols has always been able to direct exceptionally well. Taken as a whole, the movie is a wonderful joy ride with a message and it goes highly recommended by me.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0472062/

The Wild Child (1970)

3/5

The Wild Child is based on the true story of a young boy found in the woods of France and taken in by a doctor who wants to educate him. I went in with little interest in the subject matter, but found the movie to be surprisingly engrossing. I was impressed by the remarkable child acting by Jean-Pierre Cargol in the titular role. Although there were some missteps and errors, it was a very solid and endearing performance overall.

In addition to writing and directing this piece, Truffaut also acts in it as Dr. Itard. Unfortunately, his acting was terrible, as if he were reading from a script without emotion or complexity. It's rare that you see an adult actor put to shame by a child actor, but here you have it. Normally I would say he should stick to directing, but that's not really his forte either. We have an abundance of lingering shots and boring scenes. The pacing is atrocious. While the content is always interesting, it doesn't ever build up to anything. It just keeps going on and on. There is no climax and the ending is abrupt. Nothing really impressed me, but the film is actually quite engaging to an attentive audience. Don't go out of your way to find this, but if you catch it on TV, you might be hard-pressed to change the channel.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0064285/

There Will Be Blood (2007)

5/5

Wow. I expected There Will Be Blood to be good, but ... wow. That was a stunning cinematic experience. There is an intensity to every single frame that holds you rapt for the entire 160-minute running time; you cannot turn away for even a second. Much of the film's power stems from Daniel Day-Lewis's enormous, towering performance of Texas oilman Daniel Plainview. It is further amplified by the haunting, dissonant score by Radiohead guitarist Jonny Greenwood. This is the ultimate American parable on capitalism and competition, ambition and greed, success and vengeance. As Plainview goes from miner to prospector to millionaire, with it comes all the trappings of fame and wealth.

Daniel Day-Lewis's acting is simply unparalleled this year. His subtle mannerisms reveal his distorted thought processes while his wild ferocity showcase an awe-inspiring bravura. We empathize with him, though we do not understand him. We want him to succeed, though we do not like him. He grips us tight and pulls us close. On the other end is Paul Dano's Eli Sunday in an unexpected yet equally stellar performance. Though he contains just as much silent fury and displays of grandeur, we are repulsed by him. For the sole reason that he is Plainview's competitor, and therefore his enemy. The tension between these two vile creatures keeps us glued to the screen--their explosive clash at the climactic finale is unforgettable.

Despite this glowing praise, I also had some legitimate complaints. First, although I was engrossed for the whole movie, that was only because I had never seen it before. Looking back, I remember a lot of unnecessary scenes and excessively long takes--ones that would more likely than not bore me if I were to see this movie again. Thirty minutes could have been shaved off with smart editing. Second, it can be a bit confusing. Little is explained and much is left for the audience to infer; this is great for thematics but awful for key plot elements. Third, I found the acting by Dillon Freasier in the role of Plainview's adopted son to be dramatically bad. Maybe it was just in comparison to the rest of the performances, but I just didn't buy it. Fourth, several important shots were blurry, as if the camera operator didn't know how to focus. It was both distracting and angering. Though this movie has its flaws, it succeeds on a visceral and emotional level. There Will Be Blood has the ability to show us the power of cinema at its peak.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0469494/

This Is England (2006)

3/5

This Is England tells the story of a tiny 11-year-old boy who's bullied around by other kids and joins a group of skinheads because of the comfort and friendship they provide. Thomas Turgoose's portrayal of Shaun is a revelation for what child acting can and should be. The other people that inhabit this world are bizarre both outwardly and inwardly--and they are more real and more believable for it. The movie can be surprisingly tender at times, but more often than not is simply violent--verbally, psychologically, and physically. This is simple to portray and easy to create reactions in the audience. But it is neither new nor important, and it's a shame this movie spends a lot of time on that. Luckily, it also contains moments of lightness, humor, and real feeling that have a power and a freshness to them.

And it is truly one-of-a-kind. It evokes a flawless sense of time and place. This is due in large part to set design, costuming, and especially music. The music in this movie is brilliantly utilized; the songs succeed in both setting mood and revealing emotions. This comes to a fault sometimes, as the movie can rely too much on the music. The ending is also a bit of a disappointment. It is a coming-of-age story without the main character actually coming of age; he just learns a couple things about life here and there. But it just feels so hollow. You finish the movie and think, That's it?

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0480025/

American Gangster (2007)

3/5

American Gangster tells the story of Frank Lucas, the biggest, baddest, blackest gangster in 60's-era America, and Detective Richie Roberts, the honest cop chosen by the Feds to stop the growing drug problem. There were some things I liked and some things I didn't like about this 2.5 hour movie. So let me break it down to you by half hour episodes. In the first 30 minutes, we are introduced to the trite, hackneyed police corruption plot we've seen a million times before combined with the archetypal family man gangster. In the second 30 minutes, we are introduced to superfluous characters and side stories that take up too much time. The third 30 minutes contain periods of ferocity and tension punctuating the rather senselessly boring nothing that takes up the majority of the movie. The fourth 30 minutes we finally see a bit more excitement and character development. It starts to be more than random information being slowly revealed to us. We are actually engaged by the characters and their actions for once. The fifth 30 minutes are incredible. A truly powerful climax and a high-note to end the movie on. It almost makes up for the rest of the movie. Almost.

The movie is more than technically proficient, but less than necessary when it comes to storytelling. Why are we watching any of this? The one word to describe this movie would be excess. It's as if they had a solid story, and then decided to add junk on the sides. Ridley Scott should decide which story he wants to tell and tell it. He goes for the gangster building up his empire and the cop investigating the rising drug problem. They eventually intersect, so why not just start the story there? People keep asking, who is this guy? How does he do what he does? But we don't feel the same sense of wonder and awe that the rest of the characters do because we know who he his and we know how he sells better heroin for less money. The first hour and a half should have been cut, replaced by 15-30 minutes of more revealing storytelling from either Crowe or Washington's perspective. That would make this a much tighter, much better movie. Instead, it's a limp, overlong, unsuccessful attempt at an epic gangster movie in the vein of The Godfather.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0765429/

Y tu mamá también (2001)

4/5

Alfonso Cuarón's Y tu mamá también tells the stunning, unforgettable emotional journey of two young Mexicans on a road trip with a sexy older woman. It is both a tender, funny coming-of-age drama and an exploratory character study of a woman who chooses to join these boys and teach them to mature--both sexually and as human beings--for reasons of her own. Suffice it to say, there are some secrets that are revealed during the journey that explore the characters and their motivations, adding unexpected layers to already complex characters.

As in Children of Men, this movie contains several evocative long tracking shots. Here they are used often during sex scenes and, in my opinion, serve the purpose of deglamorizing the kind of pornographic sex we see in Hollywood movies. They add to the reality and rawness inherent in life that is often lost during filming and editing. Other directorial choices make strong impressions on me as well. There is voice-over narration, but not the lazy, plot point-revealing narration that pisses me off. The choice of what information is and is not revealed through narration fascinates me. It seems to tell a completely different story, about the new, poverty-stricken Mexico that many remain unexposed to.

The performances by all parties are incredible, more than believable, and the other technical aspects are more than competent (although not in any way exceptional). And yet, despite all these positive aspects I find while analyzing the movie, it just didn't fully affect me. I was touched, but not moved. I was impressed, but not awestruck. How universal are the themes? Am I just watching a technically-adequate movie, or does it apply to my life in some way? How does it change me? I can't say it does, but to the sexually confused and/or Mexicans who can get more out of this work of art than I can, I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0245574/

License to Wed (2007)

3/5

As you probably know from the trailers and immediately forgot, License to Wed is about a young couple (John Krasinski and Mandy Moore) who go through a premarital counseling course run by the insane Reverend Frank (Robin Williams). The very insane Reverend Frank. He gives them creepy robot babies to test their parenting skills, he bugs their house to make sure there's no sex before the wedding, and he makes them drive blindfolded to practice communication skills. (Don't worry, I'm not revealing anything that isn't in the trailer.) Yes, it is preposterous and you know how it's going to end, but is that really why you're watching this movie? Naw, you see it for that feel-good moment, and after 90 minutes it comes, as expected. (Although, not as I expected, in a Michael Bay, rapidly-rotating camera shot.)

Nothing about this movie is exceptional or painful. It is solidly, forgettably mediocre. One thing did rub me the wrong way. Robin Williams's character is a bit sexually risqué for me. It just seems odd to have so much of his adult, male humor in this otherwise teenage girlie movie. But there were also little gems I really enjoyed. For example, Reverend Frank has a chubby kid protégé who's pretty hilarious. And it was great seeing Mindy Kaling, Brian Baumgartner, and Angela Kinsey in supporting roles. And of course John Krasinski in the lead. I love it when I see The Office actors pop up in random movies. They're not enough to make a movie good, but they are enough to make this movie more than watchable! Recommended for those who want to see The Office actors in something they haven't already seen (but Robin Williams fans will be disappointed).

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0762114/

Ace in the Hole (1951)

4/5

Billy Wilder's Ace in the Hole is a strikingly unique film noir from the master himself. All of Wilder's noirs play off the typical detective crime story in unexpected ways that have never since been copied. Here we have Kirk Douglas flawlessly depict the flawed Chuck Tatum, a big city newspaper man who finds himself in Albuquerque after being fired from just about every major newspaper in the US. After a year working for a small-town paper, he stumbles upon the biggest story of his career: a local man trapped in a cave. He becomes involved in the rescue operation, manipulating it to last longer than it needs to so he can keep the story going for as long as possible. Over the course of the movie, we gradually understand the power held by the media, public opinion, and capitalistic desires by seeing each and every one of them abused.

As a film, it holds up admirably well even by today's standards. The editing is fast-paced and lean. The story unfolds effortlessly and believably. The movie holds us in its grip until the shocking finale. The dialogue is violent and vicious, with unscrupulously brutal characters to match: the hateful wife who wants to run out on him while he's trapped, the sheriff who uses the incident to get re-elected, and of course Tatum himself. But it's not that simple. By the end of the movie, we realize with alarming clarity Tatum's multidimensionality, his humanity, and his feelings of responsibility and guilt. The delirious final shot is uncompromising, a perfect image to end the movie on.

And yet, for some reason, I just wasn't as captivated by this movie as I was by Wilder's others. I don't know what it was. I was unimpressed with the cinematography (except for that final shot) and dismissed the rather forgettable music. But still, something inarticulable just separated me from this movie. This is not a flaw of the film, but rather of myself as a viewer. All in all, however, this is an incredible movie and well worth seeing for anyone interested.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0043338/

Read My Lips (2001)

4/5

Read My Lips is a nail-biting, character-based French crime thriller. In it, we see a painfully real portrait of an average woman wanting to be more attractive, more successful, but above all more normal. As the movie progresses, these layers are revealed in a subtle, nuanced performance by Emmanuelle Devos. It reminded me very much of the protagonist in Walter Salles's Central Station--imperfect, making mistakes, and changing ever so slowly. The other characters are somewhat less developed in my opinion, but her partner in crime is played pitch-perfectly by Vincent Cassel. I wasn't as impressed with his performance here as I have been in other movies he's been in, but it was still remarkably spot-on.

In comparison to the other Audiard movie I've seen (The Beat That My Heart Skipped), this one is more plot-oriented and less of a character study. That being said, it still has incredibly strong and believable characters. And a tense, engaging plot from the very beginning. I knew nothing about the story going in, but was pulled in and couldn't escape its grasp until released at its finale. This is in large part due to unerring editing and pacing, matched by beautiful cinematography and evocative aural and visual post-production choices. Still, some plot elements at the end didn't make much sense. And I didn't understand the side story with the parole officer looking for his wife. It was just bizarre. Highly recommended for anyone who enjoys tense crime thrillers and/or Jacques Audiard.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0274117/

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

3/5

After the atrocity that was Pirates 2, I told myself I wouldn't see the third one. But I did anyway. Partly because Sameer said it was pretty good, but mostly because I had the option to see it in Blu-Ray. Here are my conclusions: Blu-Ray is amazing. Pirates 3 is okay.

The best thing about Pirates 3 is how pretty it is. The striking cinematography combines seamlessly with the special effects. And it is breathtaking in high definition. (The text was so crisp!) The second best thing is the humor. The drama and tension are very regularly punctuated by comic relief that I found hilarious. (I was especially happy when I discovered that Ragetti, the pirate with the wooden eye, was played by the same actor who played Gareth on the UK version of The Office.) The third best thing is the action. It was always fun, mostly because it was so utterly preposterous and fantastical. Also the music worked pretty well.

The worst thing about the movie was how unnecessarily convoluted the plot was. I had no idea what was going on. Ever. About an hour and a half through, I gave up, paused the movie, and forced everyone else to explain to me what was going on. That took about 20 minutes. Then there was another hour and a half of movie. Which brings me to the second worst thing about the movie. The length. It is unnecessarily long. This is probably to deal with the unnecessarily convoluted plot. But there are also literally about 30 minutes that could have been taken out without any effect on the movie, except making it better. Also, I'm sick of movies that lead into the sequel at the end. That also happened at the end of Heroes, season 1. And that show sucks.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0449088/