Interview with the Vampire (1994)

2/5

I was pretty disappointed by Neil Jordan's Interview with the Vampire. It might be that I just don't like vampire movies, but I think the bigger reason is that I just don't like bad movies. Apparently the movie's sympathetic vision of vampires was revolutionary ... or something. It didn't seem that novel or interesting to me. It follows the story of Louis (Brad Pitt) over the past 200+ years after being turned by Lestat (Tom Cruise). Kirsten Dunst plays an angsty and needy teenage vampire and Antonio Banderas plays a suave yet flamboyant vampire. All of them are orgiastically homoerotic towards each other.

I'm sure there's a lot about vampire culture I don't understand, but the stuff I did understand wasn't very good. The story plodded along, the wooden dialogue stumbled forward, the actors didn't complement each other. The camera focused on meaningless gestures, the editing lacked purpose, and the movie felt like it took three hours. I had to stand up and walk around to stay awake, which annoyed every one else I saw it with. But as soon as I stopped walking around and sat down, I fell right back asleep. The positives: some interesting ideas and cool special effects. I'm sorry to say it, but don't bother with this movie unless your a vampirophile.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110148/

28 Days Later (2002)

3/5

Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later effectively merges the zombie horror movie with the post-apocalyptic survival movie. There are scenes that make you jump and feel sick. But there are also scenes that make you think and allow for thoughtful discussion afterwards. While I think there are movies that tackle both issues better and with more sophistication, this is still a successful endeavor. And it is refreshing to see director Danny Boyle consistently changing the types of projects he takes on with ease, from Trainspotting and Millions to Sunshine and 28 Days Later.

Technically, the movie is a bit mixed. While the cinematography is striking (nearly every shot is set up to be visually appealing), there are little to no establishing shots. For me, it hurt the movie--it couldn't sustain tension as I never knew how close the zombies were. This is also tied in with the editing, which was too rapid-fire for me to tell what was going on. It worked much better in this movie, though, than more traditional action movies like Batman Begins. Despite these problems, the movie used a novel, extremely effective visual style, mixing digital video with Super 8 and 35mm film. Several parts were shot at really high shutter speed, which turned normally blurry movement into crisp but choppy movement. It gives the zombies a disturbing and disorienting quality. And it makes rain look amazing. In my opinion, this style was the most successful and memorable part of the movie.

My biggest complaint is that that movie introduces a cagey scientific explanation for the zombie epidemic: a virus. The problem is that it hints at reality and plausibility, but doesn't come close to satisfying the intellectual curiosity it invited. I don't buy a virus taking over a human in 20 seconds, or jumping species without any mutation time, or degrading mental capacities to inhuman instincts. I am fine with a zombie movie that leaves the mystery of the "zombie" alone, but if it provides an explanation, it better be able to stand up to reasonable scrutiny. Otherwise it just seems incomplete, like a good idea that they didn't bother thinking all the way through. Still, the movie is pretty awesome for a variety of reasons, so I wouldn't dismiss it or tell you not to watch it. It's not hard to recommend, as long as you know what you're getting into.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/

21 (2008)

2/5

21 is a laughably bad movie; it is a fake version of a true story wherein six MIT students counted cards to win big from blackjack tables in Vegas. Except of course for the second and third acts, where things go wrong and become right again thanks to our hero. The story lacked creativity and insight. The writing was atrocious, the characters one-dimensional, the acting flat. Even Spacey was disappointing; while he wasn't bad, he just didn't have any opportunity to be good with the script. The music was always out of place. The scenario was exceptionally unrealistic: who believes that the only way to go to med school is with tuition for four years pre-paid? "Don't have $300k in your pocket? Can't go to med school!" And how can the idiot who believes this have gotten a 44 MCAT?

At the same time, there were a number of parts I enjoyed. Some of the action and exciting moments were gripping. There is one devastating moment in the film, where everything comes crashing down, and I really felt what the character felt. Several of Spacey's lines are brilliantly delivered, especially his vicious insults. The Asian dude is hilarious. It's fun to laugh at, but even then it's not worth it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478087/

Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008)

4/5

Forgetting Sarah Marshall is yet another successful comedy from the Judd Apatow producing team. It's funny, it's smart, it's tender--what more could you want in a movie? Jason Segal announces his presence as a viable leading man: he's a quirky "composer" who gets dumped by his superstar girlfriend Sarah Marshall (Kristen Bell) and goes to Hawaii to get over her. As he soon finds out, he's staying at the same resort as his ex and her new superstar musician love interest Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). He quickly pairs up with Jackie from That 70's Show (Mila Kunis), only she's less annoying and more attractive in this movie.

Now that you know the basic framework and characters, I'm sure you know how it ends. Regardless, how it gets there is a hilarious and unique romp. (And thirty minutes shorter than his other movies too!) The humor is infectious; you feel the same joy the characters feel. You also feel their sadness because there is an honesty to the actors' performances that extend past the dialogue and the simple genre of comedy. This movie, as in all of Apatow's films, contains some of the strongest and most indelible side characters of any movie in recent memory. We may have seen this trope before, but we've never experienced it alongside these people. (Especially Kenneth from 30 Rock!)

The movie has some flaws. At times, I felt the jokes fell a bit flat. The timing was a bit off too--you didn't have enough time to laugh at the jokes. Additionally, half the movie had no establishing shots, making it hard to get a feel for the setting. The flashbacks were used effectively sometimes, but was very confusing in conjunction with the lack of establishing shots. Still. If you find me talking about technical flaws like establishing shots in a comedy, you know it got at least most things right. So if you liked Knocked Up and The 40-Year-Old Virgin, watch this movie and have a blast.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0800039/

Nanking (2007)

3/5

Nanking describes the events of the winter of 1937 in Nanking, China: the heinous crimes committed by the Japanese during their occupation of the city and the protection offered by foreigners who created a Safety Zone. It serves mostly as a description, however, and doesn't succeed as a documentary. It is too mild and tepid to make any point worth making. It seems too afraid to offend, reiterating how all Japanese were not the cruel villains committing these sins. But it does not condemn the evil that caused it; in fact, it says nothing at all of evil, or of the nature of mankind, or of anything global or universal. It relays facts and draws no conclusions, and so we walk out of the theater knowing a little more about a tragic series of specific events and nothing else.

That being said, there are several moments that just tear me up inside thinking of them; horrifying firsthand accounts of atrocities backed by stunning archival footage I can never forget. While edited together proficiently, they never reached their full potential. In retelling the events chronologically, the filmmakers muted the emotional and visceral climaxes of the anecdotes. They seemed afraid of taking chances, and took the simple way out hoping the subject matter would be enough to make this movie good. It is not.

An interesting technique they used was having actors read diary entries and letters of real people involved. Seeing people I recognized made it hard for me to envision them as the people they were portraying. Additionally, the fact that they were reading letters, talking at you instead of to you, provided a distancing feel as opposed to an inviting one. Still, I commend this film for publicizing the rape of Nanking, for revealing something that has been hidden and denounced time and time again. You don't need to watch this movie, but you do need to know about this terrible scar on mankind's history.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0893356/

The Stone Carvers (1984)

4/5

The Stone Carvers, by Paul Wagner and Marjorie Hunt, is an exceptionally well-produced, eminently fascinating portrait of Italian American stone carvers working in DC on the National Cathedral. They understand the form so intimately that they make the whole 30 minute story seem so organic while simultaneously having so much direction and purpose in every shot and every scene. While the subject matter may not sound interesting to you now, the filmmakers are able to craft the movie around people who are entertaining, engaging, and full of vibrancy and life. It's hard to take your eyes off of them.

I did not like the PBS feel to the film. This one part in particular had some sort of instructional, descriptive scrolling text that seemed so archaic and out of place. Also, the subjects were at times difficult to understand due to their thick accents. That is not really the film's fault (yes, they could have subtitled it), but it does hinder your enjoyment of the film a little bit. It is a great watch and definitely deserving of the Academy Award.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0088177/

Lost in Translation (2003)

4.9/5

Sofia Coppola's Lost in Translation is by far her best film. It is a rare example of a slice-of-life romance that is actually a slice-of-life and actually a romance. With strikingly beautiful and tenderly poignant images, we get a sense of Coppola's love for her characters and the city they find themselves in. We know that they are honest portraits of real people amidst foreign customs. We see this truth in the sparse writing, the subtle acting, the patient directing. In the lingering moments between words and actions, we see awkward new love and dispassionate marriage. We see so much about the lives of these wanderers through the movements of their bodies, the checking of their words, that we understand why they make the connection that they do. And that is the heart of this movie.

Technically there were few missteps; the only thing that comes to mind is the occasional loose editing. Overall there were more flaws. Many complain that the film is racist. While it uses all the obvious jokes and stereotypes, they serve as playful descriptions, not hateful mockery, of Japanese people and culture. Perhaps one of the charms of the movie, one of the things that lends it a sense of realism, is the lack of grand insightful themes. The dialogue always feels so much more profound than it actually is, which leaves the viewer wondering what more this movie could have been. And I know that this movie will appeal to far fewer people than other great films. But for those it affects, well. Watch it and find out for yourself.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0335266/