Don't Look Now (1973)

4/5

Nicolas Roeg's Don't Look Now is a thriller of the most terrifying kind. It is eerie, it is bizarre, and it is frightening. From the very beginning, an unsettling feeling sneaks its way under your skin and stays there well after the credits roll. My heart is still racing as I write this review. Married couple John and Laura Baxter (Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie) lose their daughter in a freak drowning. Some time later, they find themselves in Venice as part of John's work renovating an old Italian church. There Laura meets two sisters, one of whom is blind and claims to be psychic. She tells Laura that she has seen their daughter--sitting in between them, happy--which gives her hope and joy again. There is much more to the plot that I won't reveal, but I have laid out the groundwork that supports the film's mood and generates the audience's unease.

Most technical aspects had both good and bad qualities. Although the characters were well-developed, the acting had me perplexed. The cinematography had a really dated look most of the time and could often be frustrating; however, part of the terror invoked is only made possible through the subtleties of the shots themselves. I cannot imagine another movie were Venice looks so dead and threatening. But I have the same qualms with the editing. It was hard to enjoy its avant-garde nature, but at times it served the atmosphere so utterly well that I cannot dismiss it as bad on the whole. The script itself was a bit disappointing save for a few key scenes, but Roeg's excellent and sometimes experimental direction elevated the movie past these flaws. Because the odd editing and cinematography force themselves on the movie since the beginning, it can be hard to get into it. But if you do, it will be well worth it.

Also, something to note: audio levels were consistently uneven. Although it may simply be a remastering problem, that's what you're gonna have to deal with when you watch the movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069995/

Night Moves (1975)

4/5

Arthur Penn's Night Moves is a complex, difficult film, but well worth the effort it takes to understand it. The plot starts off following detective Harry Moseby (Gene Hackman) as he searches for an aging actress's missing daughter (Melanie Griffith). But this is not your typical thriller/crime film; instead it is an existential character study of a man dedicated to a job he's less than stellar at. Twists, turns, and murder abound, and the reason for it all goes way over our (and Harry's) head. We realize that much of the point of the movie is to show how consistently confused he is, how he never understands what's happening until it's too late. His misery, frustration, and anger at the end are all essential to understanding the character of Harry Moseby and the movie he inhabits. We learn of his motivations, his failures in life, and his small attempts at righting wrongs, and the acting by Hackman is spot-on. It is definitely one of his finest performances and easily one of my favorites.

The technical side is a similarly mixed bag. The dialogue was pristine. It was dark and rough and true; almost as neo-noir as Chinatown. The cinematography and editing were effective and efficient, which I liked, but not stand-out in any way. The music, the costuming, and the sets were all stuck in a bygone era that ages the film severely. And the fact remains that the movie IS confusing and frustrating. It takes a lot of outside effort to appreciate all that it has to offer. Be very wary of watching this movie if you don't know what you're getting into, as it can easily disappoint if it circumvents your expectations. But if you know what you're getting into, I highly recommend this complex character study.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073453/

WALL-E (2008)

4/5

Pixar's latest film, WALL-E, fits very expectedly within its oeuvre. Entertaining, but predictable. Fun, but simple. It follows a very sad-looking robot as the last inhabitant on earth, save for a resilient bug he befriends, who continues his futile job of waste management. (I firmly believe that Pixar has now successfully anthropomorphized every single possible object in the world.) His meager existence is supplanted by scavenging old movies and lost artifacts such as iPods and Rubik's Cubes. When a sleek, sexy robot lands on Earth in search of plant life, WALL-E finds true love. Or at least someone whose hand he hopes to hold. When they return to a space station together, a new plot emerges involving mutinies and fat people!

The animation and sound design in this film are phenomenal. Absolutely astonishing. There was very little acting due in no small part to the very little dialogue. Even without those aspects, the characters were rich and charming. An impressive feat. After the first 30 minutes or so, which I found a bit boring (imagine a 30 minute version of the trailer), I was really hooked. The humor began to pick up pace and I found myself drawn into their vision of the future (think Idiocracy meets I, Robot). The creative little quirks of the robots, people, and ship reminded me of the ingenuity and magic in Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas and Jean-Pierre Jeunet's Delicatessen. You feel yourself in a fully-realized world with its own set of rules. One thing I did not like about the movie was the inclusion of live action; it made it that much more obvious that we were watching CGI and that this was not real.

A bit of a rant: I just wish Pixar would take some risks now and again. I wish they would surprise me for once. They succeed at what they set out to do admirably well, but they don't aim their sights high enough. They spend time replicating lens flares and rack focuses instead of taking advantage of the fact that this movie was NOT shot with a camera. They have the resources and intelligence to give us something truly revolutionary, something we have never ever even dreamed of seeing, but instead they rehash movie tropes and sprinkle a little fairy dust on top and hope we don't notice that we've seen this all before, albeit in an uglier or rougher form.

Another note: The short film in the beginning of this movie, Presto, is amazing. Highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0910970/

In the Valley of Elah (2007)

4/5

Paul Haggis's In the Valley of Elah manages to be touching without the oversentimentality that usually suffocates his films. Based on a true story, the movie follows Tommy Lee Jones as a retired career officer who starts investigating the disappearance of his son after his return from Iraq. From the very beginning, the mystery is paced exceptionally well, continually pulling you in and keeping your brain active the entire time. While not as gripping as A Few Good Men (and ultimately not as good, in my opinion), it is without a doubt more timely and relevant.

The acting was really good, although I think Tommy Lee Jones was better in No Country for Old Men than in this. Much of it was subtle and understated, making it feel richer and more genuine. Paul Haggis used a number of extended shots to give the actors room to act, instead of cutting between shot/countershot close-ups across 30 different takes. He has definitely learned to use the camera to compose interesting shots and movements. (One of my big arguments against Crash is that it had almost zero cinematic qualities; it's good to see that Haggis is finally learning.) If you were interested in this flick when it first came out, I definitely recommend you see it. And if not, perhaps you should consider it anyway.

Note: It was awesome seeing Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, AND Barry Corbin all in this film. It's like all those bad comedies that become so much better because of cameos from side characters on the Office. Except it's cameos from No Country for Old Men!

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478134/

Once (2006)

3/5

John Carney's Once is a movie for romantic music fans. The story is very simplistic, but also very honest, which gave it a refreshing and satisfying ending. It follows an Irish street musician in Dublin for about a week, during which time he meets and falls in love with a Czech girl. They both have an unrelenting love of music, which serves as the starting point for their relationship. But it's also the entire movie. They just sing songs together, too many songs, and it gets a bit old. Most of the songs are excellent, however, and in fact three in particular remain in my mind. It's no coincidence that they come at three of the most poignant moments in the movie. The first is when they first sit down and sing "Falling Slowly" together, the second is when the guy lets the girl write the lyrics to his song "If You Want Me," and the third is when we hear the girl sing a song she's written, "The Hill," but breaks down midway through and cannot finish.

Unfortunately, I found nothing more to the movie than that: a story that was at times moving (but also at times confusing) with a lot of music that was at times touching (but also at times overbearing). The acting was underwhelming--it felt like two people trying to act natural and ignore the camera--and the excessive swearing took a lot away from the romance. Accents were difficult to understand throughout. I didn't like the camerawork much at all. Sometimes it worked, but one time in particular it very much did not. When they first sing "Falling Slowly" together, the camera moves around like an antsy child. The camera becomes a person trapped in the room with them, at once removing the intimacy and romance. They should've stuck it on a tripod and let the musicians do their thing. So, granted there are a lot of mistakes in this short indie feature, but there are also a lot of things done right. And at 85 minutes, I think the successes outweigh the failures, so check it out if your interest is piqued.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0907657/

Wanted (2008)

3/5

Wanted will probably be the most over-the-top, visually exciting action movie to come to America this year. Directed by Timur Bekmambetov (of Night Watch and Day Watch fame), the movie goes heavy on the special effects. But unlike his previous Russian sensations, this one has a solid plot to hinge the smart-ass humor and slick action on. Even though it was a bit simplistic and trite, the story had a believable twist that kept you thinking. It starts off much like the Matrix, where a boring guy (James McAvoy) with a boring desk job gets a shot of adrenaline when a sexy assassin (Angelina Jolie) tells him things aren't what they seem, right before a dramatic grocery store shootout and thrilling car chase convince us that she's telling the truth. After accepting his fate, he trains to be an assassin with special powers (except in this movie it's bending bullets instead of dodging them). Unlike the Matrix, there isn't even an attempt at an explanation for how ludicrously they ignore scientific laws.

Suffice it to say, I enjoyed myself a lot in the theater. The action was consistently exhilarating and the dialogue was edgy and hilarious. I loved the look and feel of the film, though the cinematography itself wasn't that impressive, and I thought the pacing was near-perfect. The acting was surprisingly good and definitely better than I expected. I find myself liking James McAvoy more and more. After seeing the awesome trailer (the red band one is best), I was worried this movie wouldn't live up to my expectations. But they did. If you thought the trailer was cool, definitely check out this movie. It'll be worth it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493464/

Perfect Stranger (2007)

2/5

Perfect Stranger is a movie too full of twists and turns to be believable. It starts off as Halle Berry playing a reporter who specializes in sex scandals involving powerful men. After the newspaper heads put the kibosh on her latest six-month project involving a politician, she quits her job in anger. And another one magically falls into her lap, this time involving Bruce Willis as an advertising CEO. The friend who gave Halle Berry all the information suddenly turns up dead, and all our suspicions turn to the obvious. But all is not what it seems in this neverending labyrinth of lies and deceit and frustration. In fact, it gets so convoluted, that the filmmakers shot three different endings, with three different people as the killer, so you can trust that the core story is really unimportant to them.

The worst part is not how arbitrary the movie treats its subject matter. The worst part is the subtopic of sex chatroom addiction (which we only discover through fake "IOL" instant messaging and slow, ugly, fictional OSes) that it picks up, plays with for a few minutes, and then leaves behind with complete disinterest. The movie truly has no focus. The only possible theme I can figure out is that everyone has secrets--and everyone gets caught.

There were a few positives. The acting was surprisingly adept, although there wasn't a particularly strong script to make it worth it. The music was pitch perfect throughout. And there were some really tense, frightening scenes. The cinematography wasn't bad, but the editing ruined a lot of it for me (too many cross dissolves and flashbacks). If you can stomach unreasonably preposterous crime movies whose ending you don't see coming (well, maybe you saw one of the two they didn't use coming), then you may enjoy this filthy dreck. But I sure didn't.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457433/

The Yakuza (1975)

4/5

The Yakuza is a well-crafted story finely-tuned to the silver screen. Written by Paul Schrader (Taxi Driver) and Robert Towne (Chinatown), the movie continually sucks you in. Deeper and deeper into its vision of cruel blackness and vengeful hatred. What starts off as a (relatively uninteresting) story of a WWII veteran (Robert Mitchum) who returns to Japan to retrieve his friend's kidnapped daughter turns into a fascinatingly complex study of honor and duty. With a terrifyingly tense climax. While some have said that the movie is about Japan, I see relatively little about Japan as a country. It is a gangster film at its core, and a great one at that.

The story, the characters, and the themes it presents are some of the best aspects of this movie. Sydney Pollack's directing is also great, with phenomenal music and excellent cinematography, shot compositions, and camera movement. Casting and acting were also spot-on. The performances were realistic and subtle, electing to remain in the background of the incredible story instead of stealing the spotlight. While I disagreed with some of the editing choices, there were very few technical flaws in this movie. (On a side note, I did find it difficult to understand some of the thicker accents, but it wasn't too disorienting.) If you like gangster movies, I highly recommend this movie. (And if you have Netflix, you can watch it for free online, like I did. Unless you have a Mac, that is.)

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073918/

Dan in Real Life (2007)

3/5

Dan in Real Life is a movie whose entire story you know in detail if you've seen the trailer. A widower (Steve Carell) takes his three daughters to a family reunion, of sorts, where he meets a girl and falls in love with her. Only to find out later that she's his brother's girlfriend. The fairly predictable plot never really kept my attention and never really surprised me. And neither did Steve Carell. The director decided to hinge the movie on his puppy dog innocence instead of his offbeat, awkward humor. He (and Dane Cook) had very little opportunity to make us laugh, thanks to the rather bland script. (One point in the middle, though, I did laugh. But it was because of the absurdly rich suburban activities he and his entire family were able to partake in on a non-holiday in a countryside.)

Technically, there was nothing noteworthy. It was much more a romantic comedy chick flick than anything else, which I wasn't really expecting. Still, it accomplished what it set out to do (with few risks and fewer rewards), so I can't really give it a lower star rating than 3. But overall it was pretty disappointing if you're expecting a Steve Carell vehicle. If you're expecting blah, then this movie will satisfy you. But why would you watch a movie you knew to be mediocre instead of great?

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480242/

Get Smart (2008)

3/5

Get Smart is one of many modern movie adaptations of old TV shows. I've never seen the original, but I'm glad for it (apparently a number of reviewers find it to be unfaithful). It's a spy movie spoof about a bumbling new field agent chasing after terrorist bad guys. The story is pretty bare bones. Naturally, the music, cinematography, and editing are all adequate and forgettable. But it's a great combination of hilarity and action. The best part about this movie is the characters, the interactions between them, and the actors portraying them. I love Steve Carell in everything he does. I'm not a fanboy--he just hasn't let me down. Ever. If you love Steve Carell, you will love this movie. If you don't, I don't know who you are or why you're reading this, because you're obviously not my friend. Anyway. Just know that this is a very entertaining, very light, action comedy movie. And enjoy!

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425061/

Vagabond (1985)

2/5

Agnès Varda's Vagabond is a faux-documentary narrative of a young female drifter found dead in a ditch one winter in France. Through flashbacks of those who interacted with her before her death, we get an incredibly rich history of her last few months of life. It very much reminded me of Into the Wild; as in that movie, I simply couldn't relate to the character in any way, shape, or form. I couldn't wrap my mind around their dependence on the kindness of strangers. It did bring up some interesting thematic questions, including her near-constant association with domesticated animals and her on-again, off-again desire to be alone or with others.

The documentary "talking to the camera" style was often at odds with the narrative storytelling structure. Nevertheless, it made for a unique and rare feel. And the content. Well, it could pique your interest, but never keep it. The thing that really struck me was how connected all the side characters were. Sometimes that gave it a very "written" feel, but at the same time it felt true to life. The cinematography also had its little quirks (panning/tracking would continue past the action, making it feel slow). Most of the acting I hated, because the actors (much like the film itself) didn't know whether it was supposed to be a documentary or a realist narrative. The music was way too melodramatic, like the score for a mystery horror film. And it felt way too long for being only 105 minutes. All in all, it isn't compelling enough to recommend. Pass on it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089960/

Farewell My Concubine (1993)

4/5

Farewell My Concubine is the story of two young Chinese opera actors as they grow up during WWII and the cultural revolution. Though it's three hours long, it instantly captures your attention and holds it until the very end. It is mesmerizing and entrancing, intrepid and fearless, powerful and devastating. It uses its length to explore an immense and rich tapestry of history, of characters, and of experiences. It illuminates issues of identity, both personal and cultural, through burgeoning sexuality, through stardom and addiction, through lifelong friendship, and through artistic expression. The characters are tragically flawed and deceptively complex--and you feel like you know them intimately by the end.

Yet it is not without its flaws. It is more than 30 minutes too long, thanks to a large number of confusing or irrelevant scenes. Bad blocking and continuity errors crop up every so often. Still, I was never bored or taken out of the story. Indeed, my gripes pale in comparison to the energy and emotion this movie contains. It is fantastic, and easily recommendable.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106332/

Léolo (1992)

4/5

Léolo is an immensely entertaining, instantly lovable, genre-defying, darkly comic coming-of-age drama of sorts. Think Cinema Paradiso meets American Beauty. It is just as unforgettable, but with a few more flaws. Léolo is the story of the titular character and his method of coping with his imposing family life via creative writing and dreaming (the most memorable of course being his conception by a Sicilian tomato). It is difficult to determine why exactly I love this movie so much; suffice it to say that it connected to me. I realized how universal it was--feeling out of place in your family, discovering sexuality, and learning life lessons--while being completely unique and charming. It manages to be so real while being composed almost entirely of a boy's imagination.

Yet, there are flaws. A number of events near the end seem to be tacked on, to have little purpose, or to confuse unnecessarily. They took this movie down from a 4.9 (and potentially 5) to a 4. Technically, there were cinematic flourishes, but also less than impressive shots and editing (too many fade to blacks, in my opinion). The music was beautiful--worldly, oppositional, yet organic--that served as a perfect companion to the piece. The movie as a whole seems almost an oxymoron, of sorts, or at least an internal battle. Ebert got it right in his Great Movies review: "How can [Lauzon] create these characters, so grotesque, and make them human, and have sympathy for them? How can Leolo be so weird and inward, so angry and subversive, and yet somehow so noble? How can this story hurtle itself in every direction, and yet find a destination?" Not progressing chronologically, but thematically, the plot really consumes you. And because of its complexity, the movie is sure to remain in the memories of all who see it. I absolutely recommend this movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104782/

Tae Guk Gi (2004)

4/5

Tae Guk Gi tells the story of two South Korean brothers as they get forcibly drafted into the army to fight in the Korean War. It depicts the effects of the war on each brother's mental capacities and it also shows the strain on their seemingly unconditional love for each other. Set in a similar storytelling framework as Saving Private Ryan, we know who lives and who dies by the end. And yet the movie still manages to surprise us, taking us on a a series of unexpected twists and turns, gripping our seats in fear and anticipation. Other times the story felt forced and staged. While I was never that emotionally connected to the characters, I could see how the drama was the focus of the movie and respected that.

Even so, it's a war movie, and the action was truly relentless and gut-wrenching. The short shutter speeds (as in 28 Days Later) during several war scenes felt both otherworldly and realistic, putting the audience front and center in the chaos. The music was a bit of a mixed bag. It kept your pulse pounding during the battles, but felt really overbearing and melodramatic during the dramatic scenes. (When the music came on with a ridiculous montage of their civilian life, it was almost too sappy to believe. I actually groaned.) While the acting was great, I think a lot of credit deserves to go to casting. The younger brother had just the right look of boyish innocence and the older brother's resemblance to Chow Yun Fat made his character instantly recognizable and likable. Overall, this is a very good movie. It's easy to watch despite it's length, and I recommend it if it sounds appealing to you.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386064/

The Killing of a Chinese Bookie (1976)

2/5

Cassavetes's The Killling of a Chinese Bookie is far too long for the scintillas of content it contains. The meager plot simply cannot support its 2 hour 15 minute runtime. Ben Gazzara stars as a strip club owner who racks up an immense gambling debt one night and must perform the titular act to pay it back and save his club. It could have lasted less than 20 minutes, but instead they randomly added stuff (perhaps to generate "atmosphere" or "mood" or some other such crap) that I couldn't possibly care less about. For example, Cassavetes wastes 20 uninterrupted minutes showing a strip show--multiple times!--randomly, and without purpose, explanation, or relevance.

While I liked the visuals themselves, the cinematography as a whole was not too appealing. Far too frequently, the shot went out of focus and stayed on something we didn't care about instead of showing us what we did want to see. This is partly due to patient, lingering editing--editing far too loose for the boring subject matter. Also, the audio levels were inconsistent (it was often too quiet or too loud). On the bright side, I loved the music and acting. The music perfectly set the mood and the Gazzara's acting exploded off the screen. There was also a terrifically tense (if a bit extended and misplaced) climax. And the opening credits were pretty cool. But other than that, I can't figure out much reason to watch this movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074749/

A Woman Under the Influence (1974)

2/5

John Cassavetes's A Woman Under the Influence is a slice of life tale examining the titular woman and her dysfunctional family life for two and a half hours. There was little plot to speak of, and not that much stuff actually happening. It was just a crazy woman losing her mind without explanation. While it was always interesting to watch, I continually wondered just what exactly I was watching and why. The only reason I started watching it was because Cassavetes is supposed to be the godfather of American independent cinema. I thought that that meant he made his films in a truly independent manner, but as far as I can tell it's because he started the concept of the bizarre, awkward, uncomfortable stories that are "unique" and that I don't care about at all.

This obligatory dysfunctional family is unparalleled--these people are more confusing, more inexplicable, and less realistic than Lars in Lars and the Real Girl. And angrier. There is so much yelling and arguing, it hurt my ears. At the same time, the husband-wife relationship and their inherent difficulties ring true, with genuine family dynamics on display. But do we really need a movie to show us this? The excellent acting by both Peter Falk and Gena Rowlands was a bit exaggerated at times. Add that to over-the-top characters, and the whole thing feels staged and melodramatic. Technically, the movie is a bit more impressive. It looked and sounded really really good. The problem is that, like all indies, this movie had atrociously slow editing--it would meander and linger on unnecessary shots/scenes in the hopes that the audience could find some underlying meaning.

All in all, you can hope to get some meaningful content out of it, but is it really worth all the time and patience you have to put in? Maybe for you, but not for me. (And yet, still I am going to be watching Cassavetes's next movie, The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, so expect another pleasantly negative review soon.)

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072417/

Vantage Point (2008)

4/5

Vantage Point is a movie Sameer and I light-heartedly made fun of for its over-the-top action and cliched dialogue while simultaneously watching the trailer again and again in anticipation of its release. We decided not to see it in theaters due a slew of bad reviews, but I am happy to announce that all those reviews were wrong! This movie met and exceeded all my expectations. The plot follows an attempted assassination on the President while at a counter-terrorism summit that continually gets more and more unnecessarily convoluted and never actually reveals the terrorists' true motivations. And yet, by the end of the movie, you don't care at all. Because it set up a series of small mysteries and revealed them incrementally such that you finish the film feeling satisfied. It is remarkably successful at getting you to suspend your disbelief from beginning to end.

Dennis Quaid was an actor whom I (and Hollywood) had forgotten about. But he gives a strong, convincing performance that anchors this entire movie. The cinematography was alright, but the real visual star was the locale. The shots were beautiful, although the rapid-fire editing made it somewhat difficult to see at times. The dialogue was not as awful as the trailer made it seem--they picked the worst sentences for the trailer, which magnified their stupidity. The action, however, was incredible. I'm generally not a fan of car chases, but this one had me sitting on the edge of my seat. It is absolutely amazing. This entire movie emanates a feeling of cool. Think Lost meets 24. And watch it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443274/

Lars and the Real Girl (2007)

3/5

Lars and the Real Girl is a pretty typical indie drama romance comedy smorgasbord of heartache, love, and laughs. It follows an underdeveloped man-child weirdo lead (Ryan Gosling) and his sex doll Bianca, which is his outlet and the movie's "unique" quality that indie fanboys (and fangirls) will surely love. The real love interest is an equally weird uggo who is too perky and aggressive in the dating arena for how little success she must have had given her uggo-ness. But like a lot of indie films, this one has a heartwarming story, laugh-out-loud moments, and melodramatic tearjerker scenes. If you can stand the contemporary awkward American "independent" cinema, then you'll probably like this movie.

Now, to rant: I don't know who the character is supposed to be. It's a fantastic situation that has zero conceivable relevance to most viewers' everyday lives. He shifted from absurdly bizarre in the beginning to perfectly normal in the end. Everything was tied up way too neatly for me. And it seemed like the entire forward momentum of the story was based around the protagonist, a character whose motivations and mindset I didn't understand at all. Any change in the story was a direct result of a change in Gosling's character--the supporting cast was powerless to influence the plot progression. The only reason it kept going was because it was a 2 hour movie, not because it necessarily would have. Still, all my nitpicky complaints didn't hurt my enjoyment of the movie. So if this seems interesting to you, check it out. You indie fanboy. (Or fangirl).

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805564/