December 29, 2009

Invictus (2009)

3/5

Clint Eastwood's Invictus is a simple sports movie that was poorly advertised as a political biopic of Nelson Mandela. The film attempts to straddle multiple genres, and it actually does so quite well, but the problem is that none of the component parts are very fleshed out or satisfying. For example, Nelson Mandela is painted as a man who is filled to the brim with provocative quotes on life, but you never really figure out his motivations or reasonings. Matt Damon's character makes the observation that after being imprisoned for so long, he walked out ready to forgive those who put him in prison. He doesn't understand why, and neither do we. We never truly discover what makes him so perfect. Not only that, but hinting at a failed marriage is not enough to make him "complex." It seemed like Eastwood was more checking off the "imperfect" box than actually making Mandela realistic. The same shortcomings could be said of the rugby aspect. Invictus is an exciting sports movie, but it was not truly inspirational as it was very adamantly trying to be.

The technical aspects were also a mixed bag. For example, the acting was spectacular but the characters were incompetently written. Most of the cinematography and editing was adequate, but the final few minutes featured horrendous slo-mo that was so obviously overdone that it made me cringe. For every pro, there's a comparable con. The movie is not a great movie, but it also isn't a bad movie. It's just somewhere in the middle. So watch it if you feel like you've been waiting for this movie, but otherwise I'd say pass.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1057500/

December 23, 2009

Gomorrah (2008)

2/5

After first learning about Gomorrah, seeing the trailer and stills and hearing about the festival awards it won, I was super excited to see it. The film not only failed to live up to my expectations, but it also confused and bored me. The plot of Gomorrah allegedly focuses on a crime syndicate in Italy called the Camorra, although there is no way of knowing that until you read about it in the end credits. There are approximately three or four different story lines--all featuring very similar-looking Italian men--that neither relate nor converge. One deals with illegally dumping toxic waste, another with imitation designer clothing, and another with stealing guns.

The cinematography was a mix between amateur faux-artistic and documentary shakiness that offended and nauseated me. Additionally, it felt very video-esque. The editing between the multiple story lines seemed arbitrary based only on length of time given to each story instead of mood, pace, or progression. It gave it a jilted and perplexing experience that was less than the sum of its parts. The dialogue and acting were uninspired and unrealistic. However, there were two fantastic scenes that stick in my head. Both of them are murder attempts and both derive their power from the speed and suddenness by which they occur. These scenes, and the concept behind some of the repulsive criminal actions being committed, may stick in your head. But otherwise I found very little merit in this film. Avoid it if you can.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929425/

December 21, 2009

Avatar (2009)

4/5

The plot of James Cameron's Avatar follows a wheelchair-bound ex-Marine named Jake Sully (Worthington) as he makes his way to the planet Pandora, which is inhabited by the humanoid alien race of Na'vi and is filled to the brim with precious minerals. He is sent there to control an avatar--a genetically crafted Na'vi body--through a scientific program run by Dr. Grace Augustine (Weaver) whose mission is to understand the aliens' world and culture. However, they aren't the only humans on Pandora. A mining expedition is attempting to extract as much of the precious minerals as they can from Pandora and have recruited military personnel to protect them from the "hostile" Na'vi.

The world is filled with small differences that appear to be minor details but manage to significantly differentiate it from Earth. For example, on the tips of the lengthy Na'vi hair are tentacles that allow them to connect to other animals (and in fact to the planet itself). No, it's not "realistic," but it is believable. There exist no inconsistencies that take you out of the experience and remind you that this is just a movie. While the dialogue isn't particularly impressive, the writing paints the planet in such a way as to make it true to itself and completely immersive. However, Avatar is by no means perfect. The story is extremely conventional--think of it as a sci-fi version of the anti-imperialist Pocahontas story--and therefore quite predictable. Still, there are a few unexpected surprises to the plot and the action is absolutely spectacular. It progresses at a flawless pace and is breathtaking and exciting.

Avatar is a compelling argument for the 3D action film. I was never a huge believer in 3D, since it seemed gimmicky and could easily give you a headache (especially in a film that lasts 2 hours and 45 minutes, as this one does), but Avatar was made to be seen in 3D. And it shows. Every single shot of every single action scene--of which there are many--is enhanced by the depth of the environment and the movement across the planes of action. I heard that James Cameron invented a large part of the 3D technology that's been used in other movies as he was developing this film; I believe it. Simply put, Cameron knows what he's doing with 3D. If you were interested in seeing a 3D movie, this is the one to watch. Just make sure you see it in IMAX 3D, because I only saw it in regular 3D and now I have to see it again. I just have to.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/

December 06, 2009

Sex and the City (2008)

3/5

Sex and the City tells the story of four NY friends and their trials and tribulations with love. Carrie (Parker) is going out with Mr. Big (Noth) and, after finding the perfect apartment to live in together, they decide to get engaged (in an extremely awkward, business-like exchange). However, on the day of their wedding, he gets cold feet and cannot manage to get out of the car and join her down the aisle. As you can imagine, she becomes quite distraught and never wants to speak with him again. The rest of the movie focuses on bringing her spirits up and enjoying time with her best friends Samantha (Cattrall), Miranda (Nixon), and Charlotte (Davis) as they live their extravagant lifestyles filled with expensive shoes, purses, and jewelry.

All the technical aspects of the movie are competent. As for the story, it's fairly predictable but entertaining throughout, even for guys. There is also a fair amount of nudity and sex, which I was not expecting (even though I should have been, considering it was HBO). The writing does a good job of letting you enjoy the movie even if you haven't seen the series. The characters are likable enough, although their seemingly excessive wealth may make you unreceptive to their plight. All in all it was a funny movie with the requisite amount of conflict and resolution to keep you engaged for its 2.5 hour runtime. (And I'm told the fashion is pretty impressive as well.)

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1000774/

December 05, 2009

Disney's A Christmas Carol (2009)

3/5

I got the opportunity to see Disney's A Christmas Carol in IMAX 3D and I am grateful for it. I'm sure it was a very different experience compared to seeing it in a regular old hum-drum cineplex; things truly do jump out at you in 3D. This version of A Christmas Carol very closely follows the plot of the original Dickens story, meaning it is dark and scary. It's not the fun kid's movie it has turned into over the years. Because of its strict adherence to the source material, the pacing feels stilted and Jim Carrey doesn't get the opportunity to engage in the kind of body humor we're used to seeing from him. It wasn't quite what I expected going in, but it was still a great Christmas movie.

Still, I can't help but think how traditional the filmmaking was. Over-the-shoulder cross-cutting just doesn't work in 3D. Zemeckis, who seamlessly used special effects in Forrest Gump, does not truly take advantage of all that this new medium is capable of. He valiantly tries to immerse you in the animated world he created, but always falls one step short of truly wowing me. Even so, in his attempts, he manages some thrilling 3D moments and beautiful shots. This is not the movie to change your mind about 3D, and it's not going to be the version of A Christmas Carol that you'll remember forever after, but it's a pleasant way to spend the holidays remembering to be grateful for all you've been given and to give back to those less fortunate than you.

(I'm still waiting for a movie to get 3D right and, after seeing this movie, I want to give more and more movies a chance, because watching movies in 3D is awesome!)

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1067106/

December 02, 2009

Sholay (1975)

4/5

Ramesh Sippy's famous Sholay is quite possibly the most watched movie of all time, considering it had a 10-year theatrical run in a country with 1+ billion people. After seeing it last night, I can see why! The movie has an engaging story, exquisite writing, likable characters, and wonderful performances. It appeals to almost all tastes, effortlessly mixing elements of drama and comedy, action and romance. Told in the style of a spaghetti Western, the plot follows an ex-sheriff (Kumar) who hires two courageous thieves (Dharmendra and Bachchan) to capture the bandit (Khan) responsible for killing his family. It unfolds over 3 hours fluidly, revealing bits and pieces of each character's history and motivations with precise pacing. Some of the jokes were gimmicky, some of the action was absurd, and some of the romance was cheesy, but it doesn't really matter because you will become so engrossed in the story, so invested in the characters, that after a while you just won't care about any of that stuff anymore.

There seemed to be some problem with the DVD release (at least I hope) because the colors in this film were noticeably faded. The camerawork was creative but unpolished (again, it may just be a poor DVD transfer). While the subtitled translation was adequate, a lot of nuance, subtlety, and double meaning was lost on me. I would absolutely love for Criterion to pick this up, digitally remaster it, and professionally subtitle it, because then I think more Westerners could appreciate this movie for the gem that it is. Even if it forever remains on a DVD with subpar quality, the movie is an absolutely delightful treat and I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073707/

November 30, 2009

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

3/5

Wes Anderson's adaptation of Roald Dahl's Fantastic Mr. Fox is an entertaining way to spend 80 minutes of your life, but it's not especially provocative or particularly mind-blowing. The plot follows a fox (Clooney) and his wife (Streep) as they buy a house in a tree that overlooks three mean farmers' local businesses. Being a wild animal, he steals chickens from Boggis, turkeys from Bunce, and cider from Bean. The farmers try to dig the fox out of his hole, but as their digging becomes more and more widespread, other animals in the area become victims too. With the animals against him and the humans getting ever closer, it seems as if the fox family is out of options. But being a clever beast, the fantastic Mr. Fox concocts a plan to keep their land out of the humans' grasps.

The animation is breathtaking and refreshing. It is beautiful and awe-inspiring. But while the movie holds a lot of visual appeal, the story and dialogue fail to really elevate the movie past its quirky, unique animation style. The humor is dry and definitely not to everyone's tastes. Everything is spoken matter-of-factly--meaning there are no punchlines--that it could easily turn people off of the movie (even though I personally found it hilarious). It definitely feels more like a Roald Dahl adaptation than a movie from Wes Anderson's head, which may make you want to see the movie or may make you want to reconsider. Unfortunately, the movie doesn't really have much of a point. It's a very simplistic tale about animals fighting against humans. What you see is what you get; there is no subtle underlying meaning or great moral underpinning. All in all, the movie is filled with clever moments and aesthetic flair, but the whole package is nothing to get too excited over.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0432283/

November 26, 2009

The Holiday (2006)

4/5

Nancy Meyers's The Holiday is a remarkably tender and touching movie that covers the entire gamut of human emotion. The plot follows Amanda (Diaz) in Hollywood, CA and Iris (Winslet) in Surrey, England as they switch houses for the holidays after having their hearts broken by their boyfriends. Amanda meets Iris's good-looking brother, Graham (Law), and they begin a physical relationship knowing they won't see each other again once the holidays are over. Iris befriends the elderly scriptwriter Arthur (Wallach) and the young and goofy musician Miles (Black) to help her get past her emotionally draining ex. It seems fairly easy to predict what happens next, but the movie paces the emotions so perfectly that you are completely taken in by the story.

The script is tremendous. From the opening voice-over to the final feel-good shot, the script manages to manipulate your heart to feel happiness and sadness within seconds of each other, much in the same vein as Casablanca. Meyers directs the vibrant script into something more than just filmed words. The editing is amazing, effortlessly integrating the two stories and transitioning the scenes visually. She uses music brilliantly to enhance the emotions without forcing unwanted ones on the viewer. The acting is terrific, making the strong characters that much more vivid. Kate Winslet is as good as always, but here all the other leads turn in extremely powerful, empathic performances that just make your heart fill up. Despite some imperfections, this movie is absolutely wonderful. Even if you don't like chick flicks, all it takes to fall in love with this movie is a desire for a good story. Because this movie delivers that in spades.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457939/

The Family Stone (2005)

3/5

The Family Stone is a bit of an awkward family drama/romantic comedy combination. The plot follows Everett (Mulroney) as he comes back home for Christmas to introduce his new girlfriend Meredith (Parker) to his family and to ask his mother (Keaton) for the family wedding ring so he can propose to her. His youngest sister Amy (McAdams) already hates her for reasons that are unknown to me--and presumably everyone else watching the movie--and plays mean tricks on her so the rest of the family will share in her distaste. Everett's brother Ben (Wilson) feels bad for her and tries comforting her, but she feels so harassed that she invites her sister Julie (Danes) to join her. When Everett picks Julie up from the bus station, he falls head over heels for her. There are a few more family members and plot points that I'll let you discover firsthand if you choose to watch this, but that's the basic framework.

Despite the few comedic moments in the trailer, I didn't find the movie as a whole to be very funny. It also wasn't very uplifting or feel-good. A lot of what happened just seemed outright mean and/or depressing. Throughout the movie I felt like it was all a big inside joke that I didn't get, but in the end all was explained satisfactorily with subtle hints instead of over-the-top verbalizations. And the final shot was terrifically bittersweet. All the technical aspects were competent, but nothing truly impressed me. All in all, see the movie if you liked the trailer or the actors, but I don't think this movie is the one to change your mind about the genre.

November 14, 2009

The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)

2/5

The Men Who Stare at Goats is a disappointing "comedy" about the US Army's attempt to engineer psychic spies and the adventures of one journalist (Ewan MacGregor) as he tries to cover the story. It was advertised as being based on a true story, but that statement rings false. It's either an inside joke or an outright lie. The plot is so preposterous that it is impossible to suspend your disbelief.

The characters are shallow, unoriginal caricatures of people we've seen a million times before. The acting is only mediocre, even from some of my favorite actors (Kevin Spacey, George Clooney). It's probably not their fault and instead the fault of the terrible writing. The jokes are few and far between. When they do pop up, they fall flat about 25% of the time (and that's a lot for a movie that pauses for expected laughter). Coming out of the movie, I thought it was decent. Sitting down to write this review made me think about it more. And that only made it less and less appealing. Don't waste your time with this movie. Just watch the trailer and pretend the movie is as good as that.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1234548/

November 09, 2009

Precious (2009)

3/5

Lee Daniels's Precious is a movie so devastating that you do not want to suspend your disbelief. It is a movie that you want to ignore, that you want to tell yourself would never happen, could never happen. But I'm sure it does, and far more frequently than we would like to admit. The movie follows Precious (Sidibe), a 16-year-old girl who is nearly illiterate, who is verbally demeaned and physically abused at home by her mother (Mo'Nique), who is pregnant with her second child after being raped by her father, and who escapes it all through her vivid fairytale imagination. The difference between Precious and other girls in her situation is that she still hopes for a better future. And she will ferociously follow that hope no matter where it takes her, as long as it takes her out of where she is now. By a stroke of luck, she gets enrolled at an alternative school called Each One Teach One, where she learns to read and write under the guidance of a kind and loving teacher (Patton). She reveals her home life to a welfare worker (Carey), who calls in the mother for a meeting to discuss the abuse. But as the movie ends, most of her problems are not solved, and some new ones have only just begun.

While it's a powerful story, it is far from perfect. The movie's success, in my eyes, hinged on Precious's mother not being evil, but being human. If the mother comes off as being evil, then the situation doesn't seem real, and the strength that Precious has won't be real. The movie did attempt to humanize the mother, but it didn't feel like they explained her enough. Maybe that frustration, that lack of having everything explained satisfactorily, was exactly the intent. But the fact of the matter is that it left me wanting a deeper understanding of the characters. If I can't empathize with the people in this movie, then what was I supposed to get from it?

I could nitpick about obnoxious audience members or unconventional editing, but my main complaint with this movie is that it didn't make me believe in its world. As a whole, the movie has some assaulting images and heartbreaking moments. And the end leaves you with the bittersweet taste of hope mixed with despair mixed with anger. The movie succeeds in many regards, but unfortunately fails in the most necessary and important aspect. It was so, so close to making me believe, but didn't quite manage it. Maybe it will for you; if it does, Precious has the potential to split you in two.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929632/

November 06, 2009

The Blind Side (2009)

4/5

The Blind Side is a wonderfully uplifting true story of a young boy from the projects who is taken in by affluent Southerners and eventually succeeds as a professional football player. Sandra Bullock plays the rich Southern belle who sees a boy in need and takes him under her wing and Quinton Aaron plays the youth extracted from a bad situation by good people. This movie has an incredible power to touch your spirit; it pits kindness and generosity against hate and selfishness for the soul of a vulnerable young man. We are witness to people at a crossroads who can take the easy way out of someone's life or the tough way into someone's heart. It is satisfying on just about all the levels you would expect from this kind of sentimental movie.

The technical aspects are about average, better in some areas and worse in others. There is the seemingly obligatory montage at the end that's just oozing and dripping sap without adding any value. And there is the occasional dialogue that hammers in subtleties that would otherwise have remained in the background for the vigilant observer. Still, The Blind Side is an affecting tale, made more powerful by the fact that it actually happened. This is the movie to see if you need to reaffirm you faith in mankind.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0878804/

October 31, 2009

A Serious Man (2009)

5/5

The Coen brothers' A Serious Man is a movie I would have expected at the end of their career, to explain why none of their previous films have full and satisfying explanations. The story follows a middle-aged Larry Gopnik (Stuhlbarg) as his decidedly adequate life slowly starts to crumble. His wife is leaving him to be with a recently widowed Sy Ableman (Melamed) while his brother (Kind) finds himself caught up in criminal activities. His son is listening to rock and roll when he should be studying Hebrew and his daughter is stealing money for a nose job. His physics student is attempting to bribe him to change his failing grade, derogatory letters are being anonymously sent to the committee responsible for granting him tenure, and one of his neighbors is slowly encroaching on his property line while the other is unwittingly tempting him with her nude sunbathing. What is a good Jew to do?

The writing and directing are as perfect as always. The precise, purposeful camera movements and shot compositions make the movie feel rich and complete. The editing is spot-on, with impeccable timing that both resists and embraces cuts for comic or dramatic effect. The acting by Stuhlbarg is remarkably expressive; he projects all the information you need to know about his internal emotional state from the movement of his eyebrows alone. The changes in vocal tone evoke more than the words he speaks. The way he moves his body tells the story better than the Coens' own written actions. He is the essence of this movie, and he carries the entire film exceptionally well.

You feel for Larry. Not because you know what it's like to go through a divorce or get blackmailed, but because you know that when bad things happen, they don't come alone, but all together in a ferocious whirlwind that leaves you deflated and defeated. Larry is the optimist we all hope to be; he doesn't wave a white flag without a fight. Instead he seeks out advice from a number of different rabbis. He asks them what God is trying to tell him through his suffering. But the rabbis either tell him to change his perspective, reassure him that it will all pass, or ignore him. And just as the movie seems to be approaching a resolution, just as it seems as if it will all be explained, it ends.

That seems to be how a number of Coen brothers movies go. The brothers direct each shot of each scene of each movie with purpose, but never explain the purpose behind it. But in A Serious Man we get a better clue as to their point of view. A Serious Man is apparently a modern retelling of the Book of Job, in which Job is victim to misfortune upon misfortune. He asks God why, but God does not tell him. It is not God's responsibility to explain our own life to us. Maybe it is good enough that we ask questions about our purpose in life. God has done his job. And just as the Coens have created their movies, they are not responsible for explaining their meanings to the audience. They are successful as long as they make you ask questions. Whether or not you find the answers is up to you.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1019452/

October 25, 2009

Where The Wild Things Are (2009)

3/5

Spike Jonze's Where The Wild Things Are is a technical marvel but an emotional disappointment. The plot follows a young, lonely Max (Records) who is unable to express all the feelings he experiences as he grows up. After an argument with his mother, he runs away into the woods and finds himself in the land of the Wild Things. For those who have never read the book (or seen the trailers), the Wild Things are 8 foot tall monsters with gigantic heads. They are without a doubt the stars of the show, with phenomenal costuming and superb computer graphics. They seem so real in every sense of the word; it is an incredible feat of filmmaking prowess.

But the rest of the movie makes very little sense. The lack of a plot makes the 90 minute runtime exhausting and boring instead of engaging and exciting. Most of the characters are relatively unlikable and possess very few redeeming qualities. And what were we supposed to take from the movie? What I did like was how the film was able to conjure up the point of view of a young child who doesn't always get what he wants and doesn't understand why. The sadness on his face when other kids destroy his igloo is genuine and palpable. The way he plays with his mother's stockings when she's working effuses the loneliness he feels. Emotionally, there is much potential but it is never fully explored or satisfactorily concluded. If you like Spike Jonze and don't much care for the content then you will like this movie much more than if you love the book and don't know who Spike Jonze is. Enjoy at your own risk.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386117/

October 24, 2009

The Proposal (2009)

4/5

The Proposal is a delightful romantic comedy that gives just the right amount of haha and aww that you'd expect from it and throws in a few additional surprises (especially for fans of The Office). The plot follows feared book editor Margaret something or other (Bullock)--in a role that seems conspicuously similar to Meryl's Streep's character in The Devil Wears Prada--and her executive assistant Andrew something or other (Reynolds). She is at risk of deportation following a Visa fiasco and uses her position over Andrew to get him to agree to marry him so she can stay in the country. At first he refuses, then decides to take advantage of her situation and force her to promote him to editor after the marriage and divorce are all taken care of. Unfortunately, the FBI or whatever federal organization that gets involved in this sort of thing catches wind of their fraudulent endeavor, forcing them to take a trip back to Andrew's home in Alaska to prove that they are truly marrying each other out of love.

Yes, it is a ridiculously contrived scenario, but it works. It's thoroughly entertaining if you're willing to suspend your disbelief for a little bit. The acting was terrific. Sandra Bullock is as attractive as she was 15 years ago and Ryan Reynolds is as charming and charismatic as always. But what really made me love the movie was the acting by the side characters. Betty White (whom I knew from her role as Catherine Piper on Boston Legal) is absolutely exquisite. And Oscar Nuñez from The Office also has his fair share of laughs and surprises. The technical aspects of the movie are competent but unexceptional. The movie as a whole is extremely enjoyable and I actually would recommend you go out and see it if you like any of the actors involved.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1041829/

October 21, 2009

Clueless (1995)

4/5

Clueless is a surprisingly entertaining teen comedy that manages to stand the test of time despite being entrenched in 90's culture, lingo, and fashion. (As opposed to Swingers, which is also entrenched in the 90's, but cannot quite escape its time period.) The plot follows the popular, affluent 16-year-old Cher (Silverstone) who feels compelled to help others, and does so by taking the new girl in school Tai (Murphy) under her wing. Her unrelated ex-step-brother Josh (Rudd) is also in town to help their shared litigator father (Hedaya) with a big case and is giving Cher the headache of a lifetime. As far as teen comedies go, I have to say that this is one of the best I've seen. I loved Can't Hardly Wait in high school, but Clueless, despite its slant to girls, is definitely better.

The movie is funny, no doubt about it. I found myself laughing far more than I thought I would. The dialogue is sharp and witty and there's little lingering or pausing for jokes, making the whole movie very appropriately paced. The plot was somewhat confusing at first, trying to get everybody's names and social statuses in check, but after that it was smooth sailing. What amazed me the most about this movie is that Alicia Silverstone's outfits and hair styles still look so good, despite her dressing very fashionably for the 90's. (Compare to old episodes of Friends of Seinfeld and you'll see what I'm talking about.) Technically, there was nothing impressive about the movie. The montages were a bit kitschy, especially at the end, but nothing too off-putting. All in all, a very appealing teen comedy and one that I think everyone in our age group should see.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112697/

October 12, 2009

Paranormal Activity (2007)

2/5

Paranormal Activity was not a good movie for anyone who's seen the trailer. You've already seen all the exciting parts! And it's probably not a good movie for anyone who hasn't seen the trailer. It's just not a good movie overall. The plot follows the unbelieving Micah (Sloat) after he buys an HD camera to document the "demonic hauntings" of his easily scare-able girlfriend Katie (Featherston). It slowly progresses as a series of ominous noises, rustling bedsheets, and fickle light switches until the final climactic five minutes. And I mean slowly. The pacing is atrocious. It bores instead of building tension. Except it thinks it's building tension, so it goes on and on and on when nothing actually happens.

Being shot entirely on a cheap camera by the actors may have sounded like a great idea for a low-budget horror film trying to copy on the success of The Blair Witch Project, but it just made the movie ugly and aggravating to the viewers. I'm certain the movie would have been at least twice as good had it been shot in a traditional style; nothing was gained by being a self-shot "movie within a movie." I suppose it tried to make it seem as if it were archival footage from a true occurrence, but it didn't work because we knew it was all fake. I went to see this movie because my cousin said he was afraid to sleep afterwards. The only reason I'd be unable to sleep is knowing I wasted my money and time on this subpar "horror" flick. Pass.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1179904/

October 04, 2009

Zombieland (2009)

4/5

Zombieland is a zombie movie parody in the same vein as Shaun of the Dead, but shorter, funnier, and much more palatable to American audiences. It follows a ragtag group of humans in a world overcome by zombies and the magnificently creative ways in which they kill them. There are a surprising number of genuine scares, even though it is not a horror movie (although nobody told the other previews). But there are far far more genuine laughs. The writing is sharp, witty, and observant, using the absolute minimum to get the joke across (whether it's through quick flashbacks or jump cuts) while letting the audience build the remainder of the scene themselves. The characters are rich, well-acted, and compelling, but not particularly unique.

The special effects were fairly disappointing. The use of text, especially when the letters were treated as parts of the scene that could get knocked over or have blood splattered on them, was clever at first but quickly became way overdone. On the other hand, the use of slow-motion, especially for killing and destruction, was always awesome. The only disappointment is that there wasn't much more to the movie than what was in the trailer. All things considered, it's an immensely entertaining comedy with a bit of blood for the boys and a bit of romance for the girls. Definitely check this out.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1156398/

Waiting (2005)

4/5

Waiting is an absolutely hilarious comedy about a group of college-age kids who wait tables at a restaurant. It's not particularly new or interesting, but it takes its simple concept and makes the most of it. From mean customers to bad tippers, imagine how you would handle the situation. And if you were stuck there, imagine what kind of games would you play in the back room to extract tiny morsels of joy out of your miserable existence. And then turn it into a raucous comedy, and you have Waiting.

The characters are by far the best part about the movie. The movie starts with Monty (Ryan Reynolds) taking a new trainee (John Francis Daley) under his wing for the day. His best friend (Justin Long) feels inadequate because of a high school friend who recently got his bachelor's in electrical engineering while he has been working at Shenanigan's for the past four years. Monty, the suave underage-chaser, has his eye on the hostess, who is just one week shy of turning 18. Naomi is perpetually angry at everyone, yelling and swearing to everybody and nobody in particular, but always puts on a smile for the customers. Raddimus is the cook who loves handjobs, showing his penis and balls to his coworkers so he can call them gay, and dropping food on the floor. I don't know why, but I apparently found this movie much funnier than the people I was watching it with. I really don't know how to else to review it except to say that it's hilarious. I loved every moment of it. Go watch it!

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348333/

The Invention of Lying (2009)

3/5

Ricky Gervais's The Invention of Lying is a fairly entertaining movie that took its clever premise in a direction I had no idea was coming. The plot started off in a contrived world where not only does everyone tell the truth, but they say what's on their mind regardless of other people's company. It made for some good moments in the beginning (for example, what's on the mind of two people on a semi-blind date, what the waitstaff is thinking when they serve you your food, etc.) but it quickly grew old and tired. And just in time, Ricky Gervais's character somehow inexplicably discovers how to lie and takes advantage of it. One day his mother is on her deathbed and he comes up with the idea of heaven to cheer her up. From there on out it becomes a completely different movie that I can't really say I was ready for.

The best part of the movie was its special guest appearances, from Philip Seymour Hoffman to Jason Bateman. They were always completely unexpected and entirely hilarious. The second best part was that the concession stand people accepted my expired coupon for a large popcorn and drink, which was most likely the cause of the single worst part about the moviegoing experience. My bladder filled up to an amount I cannot remember it ever filling up to in my 23 year existence about 30 minutes into the 90 minute movie. I tried holding out for that last hour, squirming in my seat, but after 45 minutes I simply couldn't take it any longer and skipped about 2-3 minutes of the movie to pee. It was glorious. But that middle 45 minutes were the worst. Anyway, the movie's style of humor is pretty close to what it appears in the trailer, but its view on religion may either intrigue or offend you. If you like Ricky Gervais and you're not particularly religious or you're not easily offended, then you may enjoy this movie immensely.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1058017/

October 01, 2009

State of Play (2009)

3/5

State of Play is a fairly typical journalism thriller with far too many conspiracies and plot twists to be believable, but just enough to keep you from accurately predicting the ending. The plot follows two journalists (Crowe & McAdams) writing separate articles, one on a dual homicide and another on a political sex scandal following a fatal accident, that later become linked by a far-reaching corporation and its deception. But the real focus of the movie isn't the unbelievable ending, nor is it the military conspiracy, nor is it the political cover-up. It's about two people putting their life on the line for something they believe in: discovering the truth and letting everyone know. And because you see their willingness to sacrifice everything for their ethics, you empathize with them. And because you empathize with them, the tension is remarkably palpable.

The cinematography was fairly good, but not consistently impressive. The writing was full of newspaper clichés about being the first to print the breaking story, holding the press for the ultimate story, blah blah blah. Does that stuff really happen anymore? Does anybody ever care about being the first to print a story? Does it provide them with some sort of financial gain? I've never worked in a newspaper before, but it all just seemed so overplayed and unrealistic. It didn't make any sense. As far as movies go, it's enjoyable, entertaining, and extremely gripping, but it's nothing special. If you enjoyed the trailer, you'll enjoy this movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0473705/

September 28, 2009

The Informant! (2009)

4/5

Steven Soderbergh's The Informant! is a rare mix of comedy, drama, and annoying music. The plot follows Matt Damon as a biochemist in a corn processing conglomerate in the 1990's who starts helping the FBI set up a case against his company for price-fixing lysine. He wears a wire and provides evidence, but as the trial looms closer the agents on the case (Bakula and McHale) can't help but feel that he isn't telling them the whole truth. The storyline could have easily been turned into an action thriller or a sentimental drama, but Soderbergh chose to emphasize its sometimes outlandish scenarios and turn it into a comedy. And in order to make sure the audience fully appreciated its levity, he soaked the movie in the musical equivalent of urine. One review I read called it "wacky, circus-like music," but that is an understatement. My ear felt like it was ravaged raw. I had to nurse it back to health.

Despite the aural travesty, this movie had a lot to like. From the simplest decisions like font choice to the complex decisions like voice-overs and shot-by-shot editing, Soderbergh does a fantastic job. The movie feels like it was made in the 90's, which may be a good or bad thing depending on who the viewer is, but it was impressive nonetheless. It was the subtleties like overblown highlights and faded colors that really made the film feel 15 years old. Certainly not one of Soderbergh's best or worst films, it's still a solid piece of entertainment with some sadness, some sympathy, and a whole lot of humor. If the previews piqued your interest, it's definitely good enough for you to drop $10 on it. But don't say I didn't warn you if you come out of the theater with bleeding ears.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1130080/

September 23, 2009

The Incredibles (2004)

5/5

When I first saw Brad Bird's The Incredibles, it instantly became my favorite Pixar movie. And seeing it again after 5 years, it remains my favorite Pixar movie. It has everything you could want and more, from humor to tension, from mature themes to childish fun. What struck me the first time I saw this movie was its remarkable breadth of material and motifs. Not since The Rules of the Game had I seen so many topics explored so fully in such a short period of time. The Incredibles brings up the ideas of juggling family life and career life, of being true to yourself when you're not allowed to, of our rampant litigation and torts system, and of doing a needed public service, whether or not it is requested. Being in medical school, it is the last of these many subjects that struck an intimate chord with me this time. What do you do when you take an oath to do good and you find yourself in an opportunity to utilize all the faculties you've harnessed in your training only to have them reject your help?

But what really took my breath away when I saw the movie yesterday was simply how entertaining, engaging, and engrossing it was. On this second viewing, I found myself laughing at different times. I found myself breathlessly waiting for the action sequences' resolutions. I knew everything that was going to happen and it still held me completely in its grasp, as only the best films can do. This movie is far, far more than a movie. It is a brilliant work of art and a foray into human nature, social expectations, and family dysfunction. And it is something that invades your body and warms the cockles of your heart, instantly and tenderly, with levity and empathy. This is not just my favorite Pixar movie, or my favorite cartoon; it is one of my favorite movies of all time.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317705/

September 05, 2009

Offside (2006)

2/5

Jafar Panahi's Offside is a cinéma vérité-style look at women's rights in Iran. The movie focuses on a young girl who impersonates a man in order to watch a soccer game, even though it is illegal for women to enter the stadium. Caught and captured, she's taken to an area where a number of other girls who tried to sneak in were also taken as punishment. Every so often, a new prisoner is brought in. They share stories of the glimpses of the game they saw before being seized, at times even recreating it with the other captives. The excitement and tenacity are palpable in these women; they couldn't care less that they were being arrested. The focus of the film occasionally shifts to the soldiers guarding them to expose and explore another viewpoint of the situation. Despite that, the film managed to elucidate little on the topic for me.

The movie is somehow both slow-paced and fascinating; it never bores you, but it's not particularly exciting either. All the characters sound dull-witted because they talk lethargically about banal topics. There is a lot of historical and cultural significance that went right over my head, so I wasn't able to fully enjoy the movie. The way the film was scripted made it clear that there were deeper meanings behind the characters' words and actions, and I knew the whole time that I was missing out on something. The way it was shot made the whole production feel amateurish and unprofessional. Don't get me wrong: it's not a poorly-made film. It just doesn't reveal anything too interesting to me that I didn't find out about from the trailer. For really incredible Iranian cinema, check out The Circle or The White Balloon (both by Panahi), but skip this one.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499537/

August 29, 2009

The Time Traveler's Wife (2009)

3/5

The Time Traveler's Wife is a surprisingly well-shot romance about a man who inexplicably travels through time and the woman he falls in love with and marries. Henry's disappearing act, which the movie is content to call a genetic anomaly and leave it at that, often keeps Claire without a husband for dinner and alone on Christmas and New Year's. The movie is both depressing and uplifting; it is unafraid to examine tragedy and death but knows that in the end it must give us new birth and eternal hope. The leads give heartfelt performances, but the dialogue and script often fall flat. It was hard for me to treat the scenario as realistically and everyday as they did, which often gave the piece a very written feel to it. Yes, I can see how it would be infuriating for Claire, but it's difficult to empathize with her when she lashes out at Henry for something he can't control. (And on a side note, the broken timeline is just too confusing for audiences to fully unravel on an initial viewing.)

Technically, the movie was an unexpected delight. The cinematography was exceptional. Nearly every scene had a fluid tracking shot with elegant compositions and rack focuses. The camerawork was beautiful and evocative, and it was integrated seamlessly with subtle, understated special effects. The "montage" scene before Alba's 5th birthday--where the camera circles the various rooms in their house to show Alba's childhood--is a perfect example. Another is the scene where Henry steps off the train after speaking with his mother for the first time since age 6. The movie has some truly stunning shots. If you like romances, or if you like technically proficient films, then you will no doubt like this movie. But if you don't, it with fail to change any opinions you hold about the romance genre.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452694/

August 22, 2009

District 9 (2009)

5/5

Neill Blomkamp's District 9 is a rare treasure of cinema. Much like my favorite film of 2006, Children of Men, the director envisions an alternate yet wholly believable future, and then uses his camera to immerse us in the gritty, raw realism of his dystopia. The story is set in Johannesburg, where an alien spacecraft stops and hovers over the city. The military drills into the ship to reveal a population of malnourished prawn-like aliens. Humanitarian organizations demand they be taken care of, and a district is set aside for them to co-exist with humans. Crime and violence precipitates between humans and aliens for over 20 years until it is decided that the aliens should be relocated to a new area. It is here that the movie begins, after setting in place all the essential details that will be brought back, full circle, to the thrilling climax and poignant denouement.

Wikus van de Merwe is the bureaucratic agent responsible for evicting the prawns. One such prawn, Christopher Johnson, and his son are the other main characters of the story. All three are painted with such clarity and precision, and acted with such honesty, that they must be real. Shot with a vivid cinéma vérité style, you truly feel and live in their world. The editing and overall pacing are both brilliant, effortlessly mixing together CGI animation, documentary-like footage, and intense action sequences. The film does a remarkable thing, and it does so with absolute perfection. As I said in the beginning of my review, this film is a rare treasure of cinema and one I will not forget for a very long time. Go and see this movie. Go and see this movie now.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1136608/

August 21, 2009

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

4/5

Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds is a stunning film, but it is by no means Tarantino's best. The story follows several tracks that all converge on one night for the premiere of a German propaganda film called Nation's Pride (fake trailer here). The first track is that of a group of merciless Jewish Nazi-killers known as The Basterds, led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Pitt). The second and third tracks concern a young Jewish girl named Shosanna (Laurent), who just barely escapes with her life after SS Col. Hans Landa (Waltz) kills her entire family. There are a few more tracks involving actors and actresses and translators and Hitler as the movie closes in on its explosive finale, but I'll leave that to you to experience when you watch it.

One thing that really irked me was that the intro credits, the musical style, and even the chapter narrative structure are all straight-up stolen from, or at least strongly reminiscent of, Tarantino's last stand-alone project, Kill Bill. The problem is that those aspects weren't even the best part about Kill Bill, which leads me to believe he's running out of creativity. For example, the Samuel L. Jackson narration, which probably seems cool on paper, ultimately feels empty on screen (mostly because he has nothing important to say). Also, while better than most movies, the dialogue in Inglourious Basterds isn't as luscious as I know he's capable of, and I feel the replay value will probably suffer as a result. Despite these disappointments, Tarantino is effective at building tension from simple situations and maintaining it over a 2.5 hour movie through stellar cinematography, lighting, and editing, which are all up to his usual exquisite form. I definitely recommend this movie to Tarantino fans, just understand that there's nothing revolutionary about it. In fact, it sits rather low on my ranking of Tarantino films. But it's still a quality film that's worth watching.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361748/

Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li (2009)

2/5

Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li is a surprising movie for a number of reasons. It's not surprising because it was bad--I expected that. It's surprising because it was much better than I thought it would be in a lot of its aspects. The cinematography, costumes, and action all impressed me more often than not. Yes, I will admit that some of the action was bad, and in fact I've seen much better action before, but it was far from the worst I've seen. The must frustrating part about this movie is that it adds random characters to the Street Fighter universe and completely ignores some of the more famous and memorable ones. Oh, I almost forgot about the plot. But that's okay. There's no need to really tell you what the plot is about because, unlike on AMC, the story doesn't matter here. And of course there's bad acting, bad writing, simplistic back stories, and superfluous side plots, but they're to be expected. As long as you go into this movie knowing just how bad it's going to be and in what ways, then by all means enjoy it at your own risk.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0891592/

August 20, 2009

Big Touble in Little China (1986)

2/5

John Carpenter's Big Trouble in Little China is a popcorn flick with non-stop action and cheesy acting. The plot follows truck driver Jack Burton (Russell) and Chinese gambler Wang (Dun). Burton falls in love with lawyer Gracie Law (Cattrall) and Wang is set to marry Miao Yin (Pai). When Miao Yin gets kidnapped by a gang and brought to Lo Pan (Hong), an ancient spirit who wants to marry her in order to become flesh and blood again, the other three set off to rescue her.

The story is unnecessarily convoluted and bites off more than it can chew. With every explanation of some supernatural event comes more questions and loose ends. In fact, it's not even worth listening to their explanations, because it doesn't affect the movie in any way, shape, or form. The problem is that it spends over 30 minutes trying and trying and trying to explain everything, which ends up being 30 minutes of wasted time. Even if they weren't wasted on dialogue, however, those 30 minutes would be wasted on the same ludicrous action, horrendous special effects, and hollow acting that fill up the other 60 minutes. The way Kurt Russell speaks reminds me of Private Joker's fake John Wayne parody in Full Metal Jacket. Pretty much nothing about this movie is good. But at least it's fast-paced crap. It isn't mind-numbingly boring or too terribly offensive to my senses. Still, avoid it if you can.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090728/

Ponyo (2008)

4/5

Hayao Miyazaki's Ponyo is a wonderfully inventive, creative foray into another universe. The story follows a young boy named Sosuke (Jonas) and a magical goldfish creature (Cyrus) that he saves and names Ponyo. Sosuke lives with his mother (Fey) in a seaside village, alone on a cliff, while his father (Damon) is out at sea. Ponyo's father (Neeson) wants to get his daughter back because the future of the world depends on it. And so begins their magical story together.

The best part about Miyazaki's directing is by far the fantastic world he creates, the characters that inhabit it, and the rules they live by. It is fully-realized and awe-inspiring, and it is something I have never seen before. Much like Tim Burton's works, the movie has the potential to frighten and terrify, but instead benevolently lets us enjoy the triumphs over the catastrophes. However, the directing and the movie as a whole suffer from a few problems as well. There is no real conflict to consider except perhaps that nobody really knows what's going on, so they might "make a mistake" and cause the world to be destroyed. In fact, the audience doesn't know what's going on at all either because the background story isn't fleshed-out enough for anybody's to comprehend it. Side stories seem to be picked up and ignored almost haphazardly. And Fey's voice acting was sometimes good, sometimes downright bad--I'm sorry to report--but mostly just distracting. Overall, however, these flaws aren't that bad. If you're a Miyazaki fan, this will definitely not disappoint.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0876563/

August 13, 2009

Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959)

4/5

Alain Resnais's Hiroshima Mon Amour is a powerful, quasi-experimental meditation on eternal love, the memory of love, and the gradual disintegration of memory. The plot follows a torrid affair between two separately married people, a Japanese architect and a French actress, over a few days in Hiroshima. She reveals to him her past in Nevers, where she fell in love with a German soldier who was killed, and her fear that she would eventually forget the true depths of the love they shared. As most of the movie is spent dealing with the ephemeral nature of memory, often through repetition of words and scenes that are almost hypnotizing, one can see its similarities to his later film Last Year at Marienbad. However, Last Year at Marienbad was far more experimental with filmmaking techniques and simply did not have the same grounding in reality that this one did. In Hiroshima Mon Amour, we get at least a sense of what really happened and can appreciate how our memory may warp that past event.

Much like Night and Fog, his earlier documentary on the Holocaust, Resnais shows us some unforgettable images of the nuclear aftermath. For the first thirty minutes of the film, we are entranced, engrossed, and disgusted by the still photos, archival footage, and simple verbal depictions of the horrors of that event. To describe the bombing of Hiroshima by saying that the entire city was lifted off the ground and drifted back down to earth as ashes is such absolutely perfect writing. And yet that beautiful, haunting line is just one of many lines that are equally insightful and piercing. With regards to cinematography and editing, the film is both proficient and experimental. When the experiment works, it works exquisitely well. And when it fails, it fails miserably. For me, most of it worked, but I can see it turning a lot of people off from the movie. If you're not in the mood to experience all the piece has to offer, the film can appear slow and plodding. It can be frustrating at times, thinking of the movie in a traditional narrative structure and trying to figure out what "actually" happened. But if you let go of that need, step outside of your comfort zone, you may find this movie to be a spectacular gem. I highly recommend you give it a shot.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052893/

Funny People (2009)

3/5

Despite the rating of 3 stars, Judd Apatow's Funny People is not a mediocre movie. It's actually a great movie that suffers from some serious flaws. The plot follows star comedian George Simmons (Sandler) after he is diagnosed with AML. While depressed, he hires young stand-up comic Ira Wright (Rogen) to be his assistant and help write jokes for him. He finally starts accepting his impending death and, because of it, begins rekindling old relationships, including the love of his life, Laura (Mann). He miraculously recovers and, with his new lease on life, decides to pursue Laura and what he hopes is the key to his happiness.

Some of the scenes in this movie are incredibly powerful and moving (for example, when he first finds out about the disease, or when he fears that the drugs are making him sicker, or when he starts opening up to people, or the complicated mess they get into at the end). Some of the scenes, mostly the stand-up routines, are ridiculously hilarious. And I especially loved all the scenes where real-life comedians (Norm MacDonald, Dave Attell, Sarah Silverman, Ray Romano) play themselves. But some scenes just muddle the message and some scenes that need to be there just aren't. It's frustrating in a movie that seems so close to greatness fall so short. And it's unsatisfying. Even after 2 hours and 15 minutes, when I realized the credits were about to roll on the final shot, I thought to myself, "That's it? There's nothing more he has to say?"

The humor is actually fairly dissonant; you get the Adam Sandler humor of old mixed with the Seth Rogen/Judd Apatow humor of new and they just don't go together. I often had to force myself to laugh at most of Sandler's comedic lines. I never really found him that funny to start with, and this movie didn't change my opinion. On the bright side, the acting was effective and empathetic, from all parties, and most directorial decisions were spot-on. The cinematography was surprisingly effective at setting mood and evoking emotion with simple point-of-view shots. The editing was good for the most part, although it lagged in some parts as well. All in all, the movie was technically proficient with some very emotional scenes that ultimately leave you unfulfilled and aggravated. If you like Judd Apatow movies, you'll probably like this one, but it's definitely not as good as his other two.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1201167/

August 10, 2009

Amarcord (1973)

4/5

Federico Fellini's Amarcord is a vivacious tale of a year in the life of a young man on the cusp of manhood. It is also about Borgo, the seaside town he resides in (based on the real-life Rimini where Fellini grew up), and all of its bizarre, quirky inhabitants. But there is not much of a traditional narrative structure. Amarcord is more a series of vibrant images, the kind that resides in your childhood memory, with little to link them together. This seems to be what Fellini specializes in: aesthetically unique visuals strung together more by proximity rather than plot. Even without something to glue the vignettes together, there is still a surprising thematic unity. The overarching seasonal changes also help to tie the stories together and brings the finale back to the start.

Technically, Fellini is as good as he ever was. The cinematography is beautiful, the editing is tight, and the acting is spot-on. And it is a pleasure to watch, with some surprising scenes (the tobacconist) and some poignant ones (the eccentric uncle). The movie reminded me a lot of Cinema Paradiso, one of my all-time favorite films, but simply doesn't reach the same power or meaning for me. I know they were made with different intents and it is perhaps unreasonable to compare the two, but Cinema Paradiso is definitely more my kind of movie. Still, Amarcord is an impressive film for many reasons and definitely goes highly recommended by me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071129/

August 09, 2009

Kagemusha (1980)

4/5

Akira Kurosawa's Kagemusha, which translates to Shadow Warrior, is a historical epic during the 1500's that focuses on Lord Shingen (Nakadai) as he combats Lords Ieyasu (Yui) and Nobunaga (Ryu) to unite and rule Japan. Shingen's brother Nobukado (Yamazaki) rescues a thief from crucifixion due to his resemblance to Shingen and his potential to be used as a kagemusha, or double. During a battle, Shingen is shot and killed; his dying wish is for his death to be kept a secret for three years. And so the thief begins to impersonate Lord Shingen, but deceiving his grandson, mistresses, and untameable horse is not a simple task.

The movie is technically impressive. The seven-minute single-take intro shot transfixes you. The use of colors is brilliant, beautiful, and awe-inspiring. There is one shot in the movie that rivals the best single shot I have ever seen in any movie--and it's immediately followed by another ridiculous shot. The acting and dialogue are all phenomenal as well. However, the editing drags a bit. The film should have been at least 15-30 minutes shorter. There is almost 10 minutes of pointless repetition in the penultimate scene of the movie. And there is not much closure at the end. This may be because the film is a historical epic (and a rather accurate one, from what I can gather) and not a samurai movie, as I had first thought. It's important to realize that, because there are very different expectations in characterization, atmosphere, and plot progression between the two. Be sure you know what you're getting into when you start this movie, or you may be disappointed. Still, I highly recommend you see it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080979/

August 07, 2009

Vertigo (1958)

5/5

Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo is a tantalizing masterpiece. The answers to its mysteries ebb and flow beyond your grasp, always so close but always out of reach. It opens itself up to various interpretations, letting you come to your own conclusions without ever affirming or rejecting them. The movie tackles a great many intertwining topics: for me, the most potent one is the need for people to control their own lives, sometimes by controlling others' lives as well. It contorts itself into a tale of obsessive love, of purity and perversion, and of deception and dual identities. It is dark, often morbid, and unsettling, but it is the kind of work you will never forget.

The movie starts in the middle of a cop chase. Leaping from rooftop to rooftop, Scottie Ferguson (Stewart) slips and barely catches a gutter. Perilously hanging on for dear life, he looks down more than five stories and a crippling vertigo paralyzes him. Another policeman reaches down to help, only to fall to his own doom. Scottie's fear of heights is cemented through this traumatic event and he quits the police force. Soon after, he is contacted by an old college buddy who requests his assistance in tailing his wife. He suspects her of being possessed by a ghost and is afraid that the spirit inhabiting his wife, who committed suicide at age 26, will cause her to do the same thing. As he begins following her, Scottie develops an attraction for her that soon turns into an unhealthy fixation. But that is only half the story. After that, it spirals more and more out of control, beyond anything you could have predicted.

Watching Vertigo again, and thinking about it next to Notorious and Psycho, I am struck by Hitchcock's mastery of structure. He seems attracted to scripts with unconventional story arcs and plot progression. Most directors would struggle against invoking boredom with such an uncertain framework. Hitchcock uses it to his advantage to generate suspense, manipulate your expectations, and telegraph events to their breaking points. You have never seen a story told this way, and so you have no idea what might come next. In a horror movie like Psycho, that's the most terrifying fear you can imagine. In Vertigo, that's the strongest, most mesmerizing pull you will ever experience.

The casting of Jimmy Stewart, originally maligned by critics and by Hitchcock himself, turns out to be one of the film's greatest strengths. Stewart is America's hero, the original Tom Hanks, the everyman, the good guy; he is Mr. Smith at Washington and George Bailey with his wonderful life. And here he is deeply disturbed, twisted so far from his off-screen celebrity persona that you feel a torment brewing inside yourself. You want to care for him, you want to believe he is the sweet, kind-hearted soul you know and love, but witnessing his repugnant actions sickens you. No other actor could have pulled off that necessary duality.

The cinematography is, as always, remarkable. The signature track in, zoom out shot reminds us of his technical abilities, but there are many more scenes where his sense of atmosphere defines how he shoots. In the scene at Ernie's where Scottie first sees Madeleine (Novak), the camera moves as if in a dream. The room brightens when she passes by and dims after she leaves. Her platinum hair, pinned up into a spiral, and all-gray suit give her an eerie aura. Hitchcock's use of colors is entrancing; they are inserted into scenes with such presence and purpose that it makes you wonder what they mean. Because it has to mean something, right?

The movie has some flaws. The special effects, both in the opening credits and nightmare sequence, severely date the film. Several key plot points remain unexplained and some of the dialogue rings a little off to our modern ears. (Are people really diagnosed with "acute melancholia, coupled with a guilt complex"?) And for some reason, which may be entirely circumstantial and outside the realm of the film, the movie wasn't as gripping on this viewing as it has been in the past. Still, this is one of Hitchcock's finest movies. I'll now admit that Psycho is my favorite Hitchcock, but I would not have any cause to disagree with someone who placed Vertigo or Notorious in that spot. Vertigo is a masterpiece that would define the entire work of any other director and is essential viewing for anyone interested in cinema as an art form.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052357/

August 06, 2009

(500) Days of Summer (2009)

4.9/5

Marc Webb's (500) Days of Summer has an infuriating title. It's annoying typing all those parentheses while organizing an outing to see the movie; or while adding, deleting, and re-adding it to Google Calendar when plans change; or while talking about how good it is with friends. And I would bet money on the fact that the parentheses don't even mean anything. They're just flourishes to make the movie seem indie-cool. Luckily, that's the worst part about the movie. Everything else is perfect.

Starring two of the leading indie actors working today (Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel), you can tell this is going to be an indie film. And it is. From the hipster outfits to the eclectic soundtrack, from the quirky habits to the unique sensibilities, this is indie to a T. But not the original independent of the 70's, the now-mainstream, now-conventional independent of contemporary cinema. Being what it is, it's not always original. In fact, most of the filmmaking techniques are repackagings of those found in Annie Hall (which is incidentally my favorite romantic comedy of all time). But what it copies, it copies well. It is polished and pristine. And most importantly, it works. I've seen characters break into song and dance before, I've seen unorthodox or broken timelines before, and I've seen brilliant use of split-screen before, but it all comes together here to create a compelling, fulfilling, emotional whole.

The story is a typical boy-meets-girl tale, but the narrator warns us that it is not a love story. And he's right. To a romantic, every girl you fall for is the love of your life. And since the movie is told from the guy's point of view, it seems like she really is "the one." And in that tender moment where he finally realizes that she isn't right for him, where he accurately pinpoints her role in his life, the movie peaks. You get that warm, fuzzy feeling in the film's bittersweet finale that every romance aspires to. You cherish the film, realizing that all the special effect gimmicks, all the "experimental" styles, all the editing, the cinematography, the acting, the writing--all that was there for the sole purpose of sending your heart aflutter. And like I said, it works. If you liked Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or Garden State, don't hesitate to watch this movie. You will fall in love with it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1022603/

Bed and Board (1970)

4/5

François Truffaut's Bed and Board is a playful and touching exploration of the life of a young married couple, Antoine (Leaud) and Christine (Jade), and their continual learning and maturing process. It examines the joys of a new child, the trials of adulterous desires, and the aches of separation. It is a simple yet well-made film that is filled with vivacity and infused with love for its inhabitants.

The editing is efficient, almost too efficient, never letting us take a breather from the whirlwind that is this couple's new life. The acting is capable, but the script often feels a bit written or staged. And some audiovisual quirks and idiosyncrasies stand out as bizarre or strange to people unfamiliar with Truffaut. This is in part due to Truffaut's history with New Wave, although here it is more refined and less experimental than in his earlier works. Truffaut does not always make good movies--and he has in fact made some terrible movies--but his Antoine Doinel ones are fantastic. And trust me when I say that this is one that I fully enjoyed from beginning to end and highly recommend.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065651/

August 05, 2009

Los Olvidados (1950)

4/5

Luis Buñuel's Los Olvidados, which translates to The Forgotten, tells the story of a young boy named Pedro who is caught up in a life of crime in the festering slums of Mexico City. He is friends with a gang of ragamuffins, including the recently escaped Jaibo, but wants to go straight. He tries returning to his mother for help, but she doesn't believe he has good intentions. Still, he presses on, finding legitimate work at a blacksmith, and then at a carnival. But at every opportunity for success, Jaibo is there to pull the carpet out from under his legs and flip his life upside-down again.

You feel for Pedro, you root him on, and you feel the pain he feels every time he bumps into Jaibo and things turn from bad to worse. It is gripping and depressing; it is not, as the intro tells us, optimistic. In fact, the intro tells us that there is no hope for the characters because there must be social change to cure the ills depicted in the film. But it failed to convince me of that premise because every obstacle Pedro encounters originates not from society as a whole, but from Jaibo as an individual.

The film is fairly mediocre on technical terms. The shots were conventional, the editing was shoddy, and the sound seemed perpetually off. Everything felt somewhat staged. The strength is in the film's quasi-surrealist images and ideas: a boy throwing an egg at a chicken to make it go away, a boy sucking milk straight from the udder of a donkey, a group of boys tossing mud and stones at a blind man. They are images that are difficult to ignore or forget. But they are images that hold power, value, and meaning. And they are images you should see.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042804/