The Notebook (2004)

3/5

Before I start this review, I should note that there were certain distractions that took my attention away from the movie for several minutes at a time. Thus, it may be an unfair assessment. However, I remain confident in my rating within plus or minus 0.5 stars, which I don't use anyway. With that in mind, let us begin with the review.

The Notebook is a rather simple boy meets girl tearjerker love story. The title refers to a notebook detailing how the couple met and fell in love. Now a grandfather, the man reads it to his Alzheimer-stricken wife to help her get back the memories the disease stole from her. It's a tender premise, at risk of being filled with saccharine sentimentality and overwrought melodrama. For the most part, it manages to avoid the sappiness associated with its cliched and tired story, and instead infuses it with just the right amount of emotion. This is in large part due to the acting by the two leads (Gosling and McAdams), whose performances allow us to feel empathy instead of resentment for the cocky boy and rich girl who find true love in each other. As far as the story and acting goes, this is about as good a film as any other romance.

Technically, the film is about the same as your typical romantic fare. The painterly compositions could be quite stunning, but the overuse of slo-mo was a bit excessive. The simple editing served the story well, with some efficiently-cut scenes and some unnecessary ones. The dialogue, what I heard of it, wasn't particularly poetic or cheesy. All in all, this was a fairly average romance with a few good qualities and a few bad qualities. If it seems like this is your type of movie, you'll probably enjoy it. But it won't change anybody's mind about the genre.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0332280/

Nashville (1975)

4.9/5

Robert Altman's Nashville is a truly astounding picture. The film follows a series of singers at various stages in their career, whose lives intertwine during a few days in Nashville. In all these people resides a common love for music, which makes the film feel like a living, breathing entity whose experiences are those of everyone involved. Thus, we see the aged singer (Gibson), who must give up his fans to the younger generation. We see the Lothario rock star looking for true love (Carradine), the son in his father's shadows who never got to sing (Peel), the backup singer waiting for her chance at fame (Black), and the radiant celebrity with her adoring fans (Blakley). Throughout these few days, a reporter from the BBC tries to interview the celebrities (Chaplin), a politico tries to promote his presidential candidate (Murphy), and a bizarre man with goofy glasses performs magic tricks and gives rides to random women on his motor-tricycle (Goldblum). And there are many more characters I don't have space to describe. While these 20 or so personages are introduced in the first 20 minutes, they make such an impression on you that you remember them for the entire movie.

The editing in this movie is pure magic. There are five or more storylines taking place at any one time, each one with overlapping dialogue and music. And yet there is never a confusing moment in the picture. You always know exactly where you are and exactly which people are involved. And it is hilarious and moving all at once, thanks to stellar writing and acting. However, the weakest aspects of this movie are its lighting and cinematography. Bland, washed-out colors and cheesy extreme zooms heavily date the film. Combined with a 2.5 hour running time (which probably could have been trimmed to 2 hours), the film fails to invite modern audiences in. But give it a chance, because this is a truly magnificent portrait of American culture.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073440/

The Thin Man (1934)

3/5

The Thin Man, despite all the critical acclaim and crossword hoopla, is little more than a simple detective comedy. The plot is more convoluted than a film noir, with characters that look oddly similar to other characters and unnamed coppers and gangsters appearing and disappearing randomly. If I understood it better, I might give you a synopsis. Instead, I do not even know to whom the title refers. Hand in hand with its tortuous plot is its rather tepid, ordinary dialogue. The writing as a whole is average at best and boring at worst. The same could be said about the rest of the technical aspects of the film, from cinematography to editing.

So far, I'm painting the picture as a rather humdrum one. But the acting of the two leads (William Powell and Myrna Loy) as Nick and Nora Charles truly elevates the film above its mediocre components. Their playful antics and face-making, their incorrigible yet lovable dog Asta, and their unflappable sousing all come together to make an indelible impression on the audience. I can see why they made five sequels starring the couple. Despite my praise for the leads, they weren't on screen enough for me to make this movie worth it. I want more Nick and Nora. And Asta. I don't picture myself watching the sequels because I don't know if I can sit through all the subpar qualities engulfing their talent.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0025878/

One Wonderful Sunday (1947)

3/5

Akira Kurosawa's One Wonderful Sunday spends the first 80 minutes detailing a depressing, terrible Sunday. Two young lovers, Yuzo and Masako, in post-war Japan lead an honest but poor existence. They go on dates each Sunday; on this one, they have just 35 yen combined. The hopelessly optimistic Masako wants them to make the most of it, using their imagination if they must, but the cynical Yuzo feels like an inadequate boyfriend and becomes depressed over the situation. He is difficult to get along with, and Masako leaves. But that is in the first 80 minutes. After that, the movie does a complete reversal. As the film metamorphes, it becomes filled with tender moments. Yuzo finally succumbs to Masako's tireless optimism and lets his imagination run wild. Kurosawa here exhibits his brilliance, as he refrains from showing on screen what they imagine, but instead lets us use our imaginations with them. And it truly does turn into a wonderful Sunday.

Technically, the movie is a mixed bag. We witness the beginnings of Kurosawa's greatness, in conception but not in execution. Every so often we see raw, amateurish attempts at elegant camerawork, heartfelt acting, and evocative music. But the camera lingers just a bit too long, making the movements feel unnatural instead of fluid. And the editing is just a little off, making the acting feel staged. And the sound quality went in and out, making the music overdramatic instead of subtly on-point. There is one point where Kurosawa breaks the fourth wall and communicates with his audience, and it almost works. It is so close, but just not quite there yet. Over the next few years he refines his work to the mastery we now associate with him. But One Wonderful Sunday is not as good as his more famous work. Don't watch this until after you've seen the rest of his oeuvre.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039871/

Angels & Demons (2009)

4/5

I did not expect to like Angels & Demons, because I hate the work of both Ron Howard (Cinderella Man) and Dan Brown (The Da Vinci Code), but I ended up enjoying it very much. The plot follows symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) and his female compatriot (Ayelet Zurer) in the Vatican as a potential Illuminati threat to destroy the city becomes a reality. The plot is wholly convoluted and unnecessarily complex to an obscene degree; but if you suspend your disbelief, it entertains.

Like it or not, the story is where the movie really excels. The mysteries, the clues, and the suspicion abound in perfect proportion. As the movie progresses, the fear, the tension, and the uncertainty buid up to a climactic finale. The constant twists and turns are unpredictable, and they work. Technically, the movie was nothing to write home about. The acting is acceptable, the cinematography is mediocre, and the editing is average. Still, for its story and entertainment value, I cannot help but recommend this movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808151/

Moon (2009)

2/5

Moon is an average science fiction movie in the same vein as Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. The plot follows space miner Sam Bell (Rockwell) and his robotic assistant Gerty (Spacey) nearing the end of a 3-year stint on the moon. After recovering from an accident, his body begins to slowly weaken and degenerate; he experiences hallucinations, vomits up blood, and loses his teeth. And that's not even the weirdest part.

The plot is interesting, to say the least, which is why I wanted to see the movie. But it failed to live up to my expectations because of atrocious pacing. There was no build-up, climax, or denouement. The movie peaked about halfway in, and after that you just sat and watched events you don't care about transpire. Without any prospect of progression, the audience will find the movie boring and slow, which is what I found it. (I even caught myself nodding off a few times, but perhaps a food coma from a delicious chicken bake was partly to blame).

The acting by Sam Rockwell was riveting, as it had to be to support the one-man show. Kevin Spacey's performance was acceptable, but his role was uninteresting. The editing was annoying (especially during the fight scene) and the special effects were wholly unconvincing. The rest of the technical aspects of the movie were nothing to write home about, and indeed I choose not to write home about them. Moon was an interesting concept, with some excellent moments, but on the whole should be avoided by the general public.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/

M (1931)

5/5

Fritz Lang's M is a masterpiece of early sound film, and of art as a whole. The plot follows the public outcry surrounding the police's inability to catch a child murderer. As the police crack down on known criminal hideouts, hurting their illegitimate businesses, those same criminals start hunting down the child murderer themselves. In one of the film's most arresting scenes, they find a man they suspect is the murderer and mark his jacket with the letter M, following him around the city. The story is unfortunately a timeless one; it is a saddening portrait of human decay, of psychiatric problems manifested in aberrant desires and needs, of mob mentality and uncontrollable bloodlust. But it is also one of law and justice, of sympathy pervading the darkness, and of appealing to our higher sensibilities. It shows us the lows of society, yes, but it also shows us the highs of the human condition.

Made just four years after the first talkie, it uses both sound and silence to generate suspense. In fact, Lang sometimes uses opposing audiovisual cues to make it all the more terrifying. Images of a peaceful street and children playing as the killer's signature tune is whistled in the background, slowly increasing in volume, is infinitely more chilling than simply seeing the killer approach. But Lang uses more than just sound; his cinematography is impeccable even by today's standards, his editing remains vibrant and modern, and the performance he gets out of Peter Lorre still stands out. I cannot remember feeling this much empathy for a murderer outside of Psycho. This movie retains its power after so many years because it touches on our fears, our hopes, and our duties as humans and as members of society. It shows us who we are, who we might be, and who we should be.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022100/

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006)

4/5

Tom Tykwer's Perfume: The Story of a Murderer follows the 18th century story of Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, a man with uncanny and unsurpassed olfactory capabilities, on his quest to concoct the perfect perfume. He can identify any smell and track it across miles of countryside. At the age of 17, in a horrifying and heartbreaking moment, he first experiences the ephemeral nature of smell; then and there he makes a commitment to uncover the secrets of capturing smell. Even human smells, regardless of the cost. The movie climaxes in a spellbinding, unforgettable, unexpected finale that may turn many viewers off, but will also entrance and excite just as many viewers. On display here is bold, unique filmmaking. And it is, without a doubt, worth watching.

While Tykwer utilizes a narrator, he never uses it to cheat. He lets scenes play out through restrained acting and subtle pacing; he creates moods with lighting and compositions; he forces us to care for the characters--not by telling us to, but by exposing us to their human side. Technically, the movie works on nearly every level. Yes, the cinematography and editing were crisp and pristine. Yes, the script and performances were right on key. But the movie is more than the sum of its parts. You feel like you can smell what he smells--and feel what he feels--just by watching the screen. That is movie magic.

The movie is not without a few flaws. At 2.5 hours, it's a bit too long, with some unnecessary scenes included and some ambiguous motifs repeteated. Much of the movie is simply uncomfortable to sit through, and the mood of the piece is more reminiscent of David Fincher (Fight Club, Zodiac) than Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run, The International). Still, as I said before, this movie is worth watching. You will not see another movie quite like this one for a long, long time.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0396171/

Unfaithfully Yours (1948)

4/5

Preston Sturges's Unfaithfully Yours follows a British concert conductor who suspects his young and beautiful American wife of being unfaithful to him. The movie is a dark comedy, but one that changes mood throughout. As Kyle described it, the film starts as a witty comedy, does a 180 into a tense murder mystery, then finally ends as a Looney Tunes episode of gags and silly sound effects. It really is quite remarkable and unexpected. And yet it maintains a coherence I wouldn't have thought possible given the various dissonant moods.

Technically, the cinematography is pretty good. The directing and music were above average. The characters are fairly shallow and the acting fairly lackluster. Not like it matters that much. It is the humor that you focus on, and the humor you remember. And the humor that makes this movie 4 stars. Check it out if you like Preston Sturges.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040919/

The International (2009)

2/5

Tom Tykwer's The International is a simple-minded action movie with more plot holes than plot. The movie stars Clive Owen and Naomi Watts as some sort of international coppers trying to bring down a bank involved in murder, terrorism, and government corruption. The bank eventually falls, we are to assume, but not really because of anything they do; instead it is through insolvency as a result of the bank's horrible large-scale investments. The whole movie is fairly predictable and uncreative, with flat, boring characters pretending to be deep, interesting ones. Their backgrounds and motivations are absent, except when they might serve as convenient plot devices. Even the action, while somewhat heart-pounding, only punctuated the film two or three times.

The one good thing about this movie was its exemplary cinematography. And it was exemplary. Wow, does Tom Tykwer know how to shoot a movie. From the opening shot, I was blown away by the compositions and camera movements. Hand in hand with the cinematography was stellar set design. And I loved how the movie took place in five or six different countries. But this is a movie, not just a well-shot travelogue, and it just doesn't live up to my expectations for a Clive Owen actiony thrillery mystery. There is much to be desired after seeing this movie, so don't waste your time.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0963178/

Away We Go (2009)

4/5

Sam Mendes's Away We Go is an utterly charming film. The plot follows a 6-months-pregnant Verona (Rudolph) and her life partner Burt (Krasinski) as they travel around the US, meeting with family and friends as they attempt to find the perfect home to raise their new child. The people they meet on their journey range from criminally unfit parents to their antithetical role model counterparts. And yet this movie seems to suggest that, despite what we would like, it is the hardest of situations that bring out the best in us. Even after dealing with endless miscarriages or prolonged separations, the ideal parents will always be there for their kids.

Much like Jim Jarmusch's Night on Earth, the first 75% of Away We Go is hilarious and light, while the last 25% contains harsh realities and sobering truths about life, love, and parenthood. The writing and acting are 100% spot-on, and a perfect blend of comedy and drama. The editing was also stellar. Unfortunately, the lighting and cinematography in this film were fairly average. Given the rest of Sam Mendes's oeuvre, it was a bit disappointing. Taken as a whole, this is a solidly entertaining, quasi-independent film that feels more like Zach Braff than Sam Mendes. But it's an uplifting movie with memorable characters and is not to be missed.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1176740/

L'âge d'or (1930)

1/5

L'âge d'or is a terrible movie. To even call it a movie is an unwarranted compliment; it is closer to an arbitrary collection of absent-mindedly captured light, haphazardly arranged and perversely thrust upon unsuspecting viewers. Being a surrealist film by Buñuel and Dalí, there is little plot to speak of. Scenes are sometimes held together just barely by threads, sometimes by nothing at all. There are a very very few visually arresting scenes, and that is not enough for 60 minutes. Buñuel and Dalí's earlier work, Un Chien Andalou, is far superior because it had 4x as many shocking images and took 4x less time, which made it a total of 16x more interesting. And that movie was just barely enough to sate me. While L'âge d'or touched on some interesting thematics, they were isolated and incoherent, and altogether frustrating to pick apart. All in all, this is by far one of the worst films I have ever seen. If you want surrealism, or if you want early Buñuel or Dalí, then check out Un Chien Andalou. But pass on this dreck.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021577/

The Brothers Bloom (2008)

5/5

Rian Johnson's The Brothers Bloom is the best con movie to come out in years--maybe ever. It exceeds standards set by its predecessors on what a con movie needs to be, and sets brand new ones for how entertaining and enjoyable it can and should be. It keeps you hooked and in control for the first 2/3, then spins wildly and wonderfully beyond your grasp for the last 1/3. You are wholly lost in a grand mosaic of deceit, lies, and cons on top of cons. You never quite know for sure who's playing whom and who will emerge at the top of the pile. You have suspicions, but you're never 100%. And because the foundation of the story itself is built on shifting sand, nagging doubts incessantly pepper your predictions. It's absolute bliss for anyone enamored of the genre.

From start to finish, Rian Johnson's creativity and inventiveness plastered a grin on my face and kept it there. We are introduced to the brothers with a poem, one that subtly foreshadows the puckish yet poignant mood of the piece. And one that is referenced again at the end, as the entire piece is brought back full circle. The movie playfully prides itself on anachronisms with a self-referential, tongue-in-cheek attitude. It joyously combines 1940's costuming with 1970's music and modern technology to create an altogether novel and singular experience. The cinematography is subtle but powerful and the editing clean and brisk. The acting is spot-on, the characters rich and unique. The plot and dialogue are smart, sharp, and simply sublime. It all combines in perfect harmony to create a movie that is fresh, fun, and stimulating on numerous levels. Watching it was pure ecstasy for me. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0844286/

High School Musical 3: Senior Year (2008)

3/5

High School Musical 3 is definitely the best of the series, objectively speaking. Die-hard fans will tell you that each has their own unique positive qualities, but in reality this one is the one with the most merit. The songs are vastly superior, the dances are much less awkward, and the overall production quality is easier on the eyes and ears. The director's creativity shines through once more, in both the simple but heartfelt songs and the frenetic dance numbers. This is actually the first time I found myself with a High School Musical song stuck in my head--two, in fact! Also, there are a number of inside jokes that only true fans will appreciate (and point out to the oblivious non-true fans), which is kind of cool I guess.

But in some respects, this movie was the same as the previous ones. The humor is just as innocent, the dialogue is just as cheesy, and the plot is just as predictable. But that's what makes it a Disney movie, and that's what gives it the charm and playfulness its huge female tween fanbase have come to love and expect. But I don't know how to recommend this movie. I wouldn't recommend watching this movie without watching the first two, but I wouldn't recommend watching the first two. So I don't really know where that leaves us. Oh well, make up your own mind!

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0962726/