Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

4/5

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is an enjoyable and entertaining thrill ride. It's a worthy successor to a historic lineage of awesome adventure movies. The plot weaves and wanders amidst side stories, double crosses, and misdirections, but at its core it tells the story of an aged Indy fighting Commies to restore a Peruvian artifact (the titular crystal skull) to its rightful place within the mythical city of El Dorado. Spielberg references and reunites old friends, which goes much appreciated by me. He is very much aware of the movie's roots, and this latest Indiana Jones sits firmly within its elders both in style and mood. Though some have complained of the "preposterous and outrageous" ending, of what we are expected to believe as audience-members, I believe it is no more preposterous or outrageous than the first three.

Perhaps my favorite part about this movie was the cinematography. The shot compositions and camera movements were unbelievable. Spielberg truly understands the medium of film and uses all his tricks here. I thought the editing and CGI could have used a little more work, but most of this is hard to notice because you're so entranced by the adventure. Which is simply astounding and breathtaking. The characters were believable and the acting made them come alive (although Cate Blanchett's character was a bit of a stretch). The music was fantastic: a perfect blend of nostalgia and reinvention. However, since it is a relatively simple adventure movie, there's not much to take home. Still, it's a must-see and one of the best movies of the year so far. Watch it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367882/

Billy Liar (1963)

4/5

John Schlesinger's Billy Liar is about a young man in a provincial English town who lets his imagination run wild and make irrational decisions for him. His life is a mess--he's simultaneously engaged to two women and he owes his bosses money--but he daydreams bliss for himself as the leader of the fictitious Ambrosia.

There are so many technical problems in this film (cinematography, audio, editing, etc.) it's almost embarrassing. And it was difficult to get through the first half, with its atrocious pacing, sloppy character introductions, and everyone talking over each other in thick British accents. It was hard to tell what exactly was going on.

But be patient with the movie. By the end I was flabbergasted. I was absolutely in love with the characters, in all their faults. You want to hate this habitual liar with his bouts of anger, but you can't. At the end, you just feel complete and utter compassion for him and his situation. There was a tenderness and sympathy evoked in me that I couldn't get around. This is a tremendous film, and it can move you if you let it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056868/

El Dorado (1966)

4/5

Howard Hawks's El Dorado is a loose remake of his earlier, better Rio Bravo (read my review here). The story isn't as interesting, the characters aren't as rich, and the comedy is nearly absent. Much is the same, but a little bit cheesier. Both films have lackluster cinematography. The pacing is fluid and the story is solid, even if they lack innovation and novelty. What El Dorado does have over Rio Bravo is better actors and more exciting action. All in all, it's an entertaining story told effectively. If you're looking for a fun western, check this out. If you're looking for a great western, check out Rio Bravo.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061619/

The Fall (2006)

4/5

Tarsem's The Fall is a jaw-dropping visual feast. The colors and compositions, the costumes and locales--all work together to compose an unforgettable tapestry of images. The aesthetics in and of themselves are enough to spellbind any viewer, but the music integrates perfectly with the eye candy to create an even more breathtaking experience. The plot, however, could use some work.

It follows a depressed stuntman in a Los Angeles hospital with a young Romanian girl who broke her arm. In order to get morphine and commit suicide, he manipulates her by telling an epic story of five warriors attempting to kill the evil General Odious. The story he tells, and the movie's story overall, is exciting in the beginning, then seems to flounder and sag before eventually ending as conventionally as possible. Throughout the course of the movie, you realize that not much really happened and his story wasn't very good. (I did, however, appreciate the seemingly tacked-on ending and what it said about movies specifically and storytelling in general.)

Catinca Untaru plays the 5 year old with remarkable natural talent. You forget that she is acting at all, and that there are other people in the story. She steals every scene in the movie. The acting by the minor characters was somewhat flat, although that may simply be underdeveloped characters. And I thought the editing could use a lot of work; the movie needed to be half an hour shorter. Overall though, the visuals are enough for me to recommend this film to true fans of the cinema.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460791/

Into the Wild (2007)

3/5

Sean Penn's Into the Wild is a touching story poorly told. Penn recounts, with a reckless abandonment of cinematic intelligence, young Chris McCandless's own reckless attempt to abandon society and live on his wits in the wild. The emotions he feels, the adventures he experiences, the people he encounters--all are striking and make this film as moving as it is. The rest is overlong dreck. The whole thing feels like one long montage, with little backbone to ground and support the story. While the cinematography was breathtaking, the editing was so rapid and hectic that it was hard to fully comprehend what was going on. Scenes extend for far too long or have no point. The music, excellent in its own right, often ruins the mood by coming in and out at times it shouldn't have. It always, and I mean always, seems out of place. Oh, and the acting was really good for the most part.

There is an extraordinary amount of inane voice-over narration that tries to make some sense out of the mess that is this movie, but it fails at that and simply pains the ears. Penn clearly does not know how to adapt, because its literary roots show in the frequent uncinematic moments that might work in a book but clearly fail in this movie. Still, it was enjoyable every now and again, and had the potential to really move an involved viewer, but it should have been 90 minutes instead of 150 and written (and directed) by someone who knows how to. Watch it if you're already interested, but I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend it to someone.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758758/

Scarface (1932)

2/5

I was never too big a fan of De Palma's modernization/remake of Scarface, but it was definitely better than the original one. Hawks's original is shorter than De Palma's, but also less exciting and less interesting. It was made for the sole purpose of serving as an anti-gangster message, and the propaganda shows. The characters all feel cheap, flat, and laughable; there is no complexity because the creators didn't want any. Unrelated scenes are included to enforce their ideology. Everything feels staged, written, planned; none of it is real. The only redeeming qualities in this movie are the (very) primitive antecedents of (far) superior movies.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023427/

Rio Bravo (1959)

4.9/5

Howard Hawks's Rio Bravo is by far his finest film. After a nail-biting, dialogue-free introduction, it instantly sets up a tense waiting game in the vein of High Noon that keeps you glued to the screen until the magnificent, explosive finale. This western is the perfect blend of drama, comedy, and romance. It's the movie version of Firefly, with a lot less space and a little more noir. The plot follows a recently-jailed hoodlum/murderer whose brother attempts to free him. The lawmen trying to make sure justice is served include the Sheriff John T. Chance (John Wayne), the reformed drunkard Dude (Dean Martin), the young gunslinger Colorado Ryan (Ricky Nelson), and the aged cripple Stumpy (Walter Brennan). While the main character is Chance, the most thematically interesting one is Dude, who must come to terms with his addiction and his worth as a human being.

The dialogue is at once humorous and charged. The acting works surprisingly well with the unique characters and involving story. The music starts off overbearing and overly melodramatic but quickly turns into a stellar companion of mood and atmosphere. I was underwhelmed by the somewhat plain and uninteresting cinematography, but that is to be expected in a Hawks film. The editing--specifically the pacing and plot progression--is superb. The technical aspects all work to make the already wonderful movie that much more appealing. Rio Bravo is an utter joy to watch.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053221/

Delicatessen (1991)

4.9/5

Delicatessen, a film by Jeunet and Caro, is a wildly inventive and darkly comic foray into another world. The plot centers on a cannibalistic butcher landlord in a futuristic, depression-beset France. An ex-clown comes to the place looking for work and falls in love with the landlord's daughter. With seemingly effortless pacing and characterization, we come to know the bizarre tenants--their tics and habits, their wants and fears--just as much as we do the protagonists. This is a fully-realized apartment with fully-fleshed out inhabitants. Much like Tim Burton, Jeunet and Caro are able to create a wholly believable horror fantasy realm that is clever, fascinating, and endlessly addicting. It was an absolute joy to watch; my mouth was open in awe the entire time. The visual style was appealing, the editing lean and rapid, and the music evocative and integral. The acting was spot-on and the minimal dialogue served its purpose without bogging down the movie.

There were very few negatives. The biggest downside to the movie is trying to find a message in it. It's not really the kind of movie to carry a message though, so I don't really hold that against it. (It's just disappointing in light of Jeunet's later Amelie and A Very Long Engagement.) The drab yellow hue kind of got to you after a while, but that was kind of the point. And it made the ending that much more magical. Watch this movie; it is a treasure to behold.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101700/

Red River (1948)

3/5

I can't imagine who would want to make this movie or who would want to watch it. Howard Hawks's Red River is a 2+ hour Western about a cattle herder herding cattle. I can't really make it much more exciting than that, and neither can Hawks. The cinematography and editing are both uninteresting. The visuals don't sync up with audio in wide shots, where Hawks perhaps assumed we wouldn't be able to tell. There is a 30 second montage of men yelling out "Yee haw!" The acting is often theatrical and melodramatic. The story took over an hour to grab your attention, but once it did, it held onto you for the remainder of the film.

John Wayne's Thomas Dunson provides a fascinating base for a character study. It allowed the film to explore some interesting themes through Dunson's words, actions, and emotions. We see how he deals with aging, declining mental faculties, making mistakes, being hard-hearted, and being betrayed. Still, it would take a lot more than that for me to recommend this movie to anyone but the most die hard of Hawks fans or Western fans.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040724/

Full Metal Jacket (1987)

5/5

Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket is a flawless evocation of war's penalties, of its atrocities and its victims. The film is split in two parts, the first describing recruit training on Parris Island and the second reporting battles in war-torn Vietnam. Neither is forgiving, and the first is as brutal as the second.

The film starts with a ferocious intensity; the first forty-five minutes set up a suspenseful introduction that never lets you breathe until it's over. It composes a darkly comic atmosphere that is simultaneously unsettling and disturbing. You might find yourself laughing, but then quickly stop yourself as the horror mounts. The second half is almost as funny and just as frightening. It is the visceral counterpart to the cerebral first. Kubrick uses this symmetry, and echoes it in his shot compositions, to reveal multiple layers of meaning. A thematic analysis seems to be first and foremost in this film's creation. (For further analysis, I have linked a five page paper I wrote on it for class here.)

While Kubrick makes few, if any, cinematic mistakes, I am a bit baffled by some of his choices for dialogue and acting. The macho battle between Joker and Animal Mother when they first meet seems awfully staged and preposterously over-the-top. He clearly intended something by it (it would be impossible for him not to notice), but I just can't figure out what. Additionally, a few shots in the barracks/training scenes didn't quite match up. These complaints detract very little from the experience. After 20 years, it still holds up remarkably well and its easy to see its influence on future war movies. This is one film you don't want to miss.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093058/

The Wicker Man (1973)

4/5

Robin Hardy's The Wicker Man is an exceedingly well-made and suspenseful thriller. The plot follows Sergeant Howie as he investigates the disappearance of a young girl on a small, private island. Impeccably paced, the movie gradually builds from an unsettling, eerie introduction to outright terror in its stunning, surprising finale. It sucks you in from the beginning and never lets you go.

Technically, the movie worked, although it did not excel. The cinematography and editing were competent, although at times you could find band-aid cuts. The acting was a bit over-the-top, but on the whole quite believable. I thought the music was excessive at first, but after a while I understood how integral and necessary it was. The technical qualities of this movie aren't what impressed me; it was the mood and progression of the story. This is a quality film you don't want to pass up.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070917/

Iron Man (2008)

4/5

Iron Man is a well-crafted and enjoyable superhero movie with very few flaws. It follows Tony Stark, wealthy war profiteer and weapons manufacturer, who undergoes a change of heart after being captured in Afghanistan while demonstrating his new defense system. The plot progression is impeccable. I went into the theater with very little sleep and was certain I would doze off during the movie, but I didn't! I was captivated by every word and action. The dialogue is peppered throughout with comedic moments and wonderful asides. Sometimes, it did seem random and worthless, or it had really bad (not bad-ass) one-liners, but these moments were few and far between. The action, on the other hand, built and climaxed in just the right moments for the entire length of the movie. The acting by all parties was spectacular. Robert Downey Jr. gives Tony Stark an inimitable and likable persona. I loved this movie, but the reason I didn't give it a higher rating is because there was nothing more to it than $10 well-spent. It was a simple superhero tale, without complex characters and provocative backgrounds a la Hulk. Oh well, can't win 'em all.

What I liked most about Iron Man was how it broke all the rules of a superhero movie. He didn't become who he was through wealth (Batman) or misfortune (X-Men, Spiderman), but through intelligence and determination. Not only that, but he announces his identity, instead of hiding from it. Granted, these are just cool little nuggets and won't make or break the movie for anyone, but the action and comedy in this movie are more than enough reason for you to go out and see it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371746/

Last Year at Marienbad (1961)

3/5

I loved Alain Resnais's Night and Fog, so I was hoping for a lot coming into Last Year at Marienbad. I was terribly disappointed. I confess the majority of my disappointment was due to a difference in expectations. I assumed that the movie would tell a rather untraditional story in a traditional way and I would come out the theater having experienced extraordinary beauty and insight. Not so. The story followed a man trying to convince a woman that they met and had an affair a year before, perhaps at Marienbad. But the way the story was told was far from conventional. Through repetition, Resnais shows how easily memory can be distorted. His control over lighting and mood is spectacular. The cinematography and camera movements are reserved yet purposeful, creating a breathtaking and arresting visual style. There was one absolutely incredible part that I loved about an hour in (which I won't reveal) that dealt with repressed memories in the narrator as well as the listener. But the movie folds back in on itself, denying that idea almost as quickly as it introduces it. A hysterical, over-the-top organ dirge relentlessly backgrounds the piece, serving as a stark contrast to the slow, soothing, soporific visuals. I can't hate on it too much though, as its aggressively violent wails and screeches regularly woke me up after I had dozed off.

Much of the movie is simply too confusing and abstract to understand. Yes, it is technically competent and seductive, but so are perfume commercials. A good movie requires more; it requires a dialogue between the film and the audience. Unfortunately, I found very little that this movie could contribute. Yes, it is easy to dismiss something you don't understand, but it is equally easy and just as misguided to accept something obtuse and incomprehensible because you will appear smart and trendy. Most people who tout it are pretentious film snobs separated from reality. Only a few actually come away from the film with something meaningful. I am not one of them ... yet. I think with more viewings, I could appreciate what the film has to offer. And I really would like to see the movie a few more times, but as of an initial viewing, I cannot justifiably rate it higher than a 3.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054632/