Love On The Run (1979)

3/5

Truffaut's Love On The Run is the final piece in the Antoine Doinel series. And how thankful I am for that! The Doinel movies were always hit or miss with me, occasionally funny, sometimes provocative, usually amateurish, but never boring. Like The Man Who Loved Women, the protagonist is a womanizer who writes a book about his experiences with women. This story begins with a divorce. As he ends his marriage to Christine (Jade), Antoine (Léaud) bumps into his old flame Colette (Pisier). While reminiscing on a train about their past together, they are reminded of the harsh truth behind why they never worked out as a couple. His current girlfriend Sabine (Dorothée) dumps him, and he bumps into his mother's old lover while wandering the streets in despair. The movie continues on in this way, essentially reviewing the life of Antoine Doinel through flashbacks that are nothing more than scenes from Truffaut's old Doinel films. It was like a clip show at the end of a TV series, and it probably means more to the creator than to the viewer. Very nostalgic without any new content. Watch it to end the saga, but don't expect to see anything too inspiring.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078771/

The Man Who Loved Women (1977)

3/5

Truffaut's The Man Who Loved Women is a fascinating character study of a man who has dedicated his entire life to seducing and bedding women. Although the bulk of the movie consists of him attempting the aforementioned (and often succeeding), it's more than just a series of sexual encounters. It delves into his thought processes, his theories on man-woman interactions, and his troubled past. It's not exactly the most organized of movies, as it manages to introduce and expand on all those varied tasks somewhat haphazardly, but it does accomplish more than the plot summary might initially suggest. Part of the charm of including such disparate parts of this man's personality is that it makes it feel less written and more real, more honest. As the film progresses, the sexcapades almost intrude on the more intriguing characteristics of the man pursuing them. Unfortunately, the directing itself is as lost as the protagonist, giving the film an episodic, tumultuous feel. If only more thought had been put into the story's overall structure, I think this could have been a great film. Unfortunately, it is merely adequate.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076155/

The Color of Paradise (1999)

3/5

Majid Majidi's The Color of Paradise tells the story of a blind boy (Ramezani) who goes home from his special school for the summer. Although Mohammad enjoys talking with his grandmother (Feyzi) and playing with his two sisters (Safari, Sharifi), his father (Mahjoub) wants him to work for a blind carpenter (Fatemi) in the city instead. I had high expectations for the movie going into it, as I had just seen Majidi's previous film Children of Heaven, but nearly everything about this movie let me down. The acting is weak, so weak in fact that it takes away from the story itself. The characters are all whiny and annoying. The plot is uninspired and overly melodramatic. Not only that, it doesn't really go anywhere. Loose ends are left dangling willy-nilly. Technically, the movie was equally disappointing. There were scenes of beauty, both in terms of landscapes and human compassion, but then Majidi goes crazy with slow motion to beat it into your head. The movie isn't a bad one, but I would avoid it unless you already know you're going to be a fan.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0191043/

Children of Heaven (1997)

4/5

Majid Majidi's Children of Heaven tells the touching story of a brother and sister in Iran. Ali (Hashemian) loses his sister's shoes when he buys potatoes for his parents on his way home. Zahra (Seddiqi) is upset, but she knows she cannot tell her parents because they do not have enough money to buy new shoes. In order to make it up to his sister, Ali promises to let her borrow his shoes. But since they both need it for school, they devise a plan to share the sneakers. She wears it for her school in the morning and they switch in the middle of the day so he can wear it for his school. Unfortunately, the timing doesn't quite work out, and Ali gets into trouble for being late to school repeatedly. There is a lot more to the story than that, but I'll let you discover the rest of this crowd-pleasing movie on your own.

To be honest, I didn't think I would enjoy this movie as much as I did, but I found myself smiling time and time again. Much like Jafar Panahi's The White Balloon, the story is filled with scenes of such innocence and warmth. Majidi has done the seemingly impossible task of transporting us into the thoughts and values of these kids: finding the missing shoes is just about the most important thing in the world. I can't remember the last time my heart was pounding this hard watching a bunch of kids run. It is a testament to Majidi's ability to engage an audience and take us on the journey he wants to show us.

The acting is another marvel. The children are better than some adults working in America, and the fact that they chose just about the cutest little girl in the world to play Zahra doesn't hurt either. However, the movie is not perfect. There is this one rather bizarre interlude involving gardening and a young boy wearing pink. I'm sure there is a lot of subtle Iran-specific social commentary that I am missing, but I'm not quite sure why it was in this movie. It feels out of place compared with the rest of the piece. All in all, this is an inspiring and uplifting tale of the lengths to which we will go for our family.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118849/

Broken Flowers (2005)

3/5

Jim Jarmusch's Broken Flowers was--remarkably--not as bad as all his other movies. The movie actually held my interest and packs an emotional punch. The plot follows Don Johnston (Murray) on a quest to find an old girlfriend who wrote him a letter telling him he has a son. Watching Broken Flowers, I noticed that he has a unique sense of style that permeates past their dress and into their interactions and mannerisms. His style is not universal or classic, but indie and fickle. I have a feeling that I don't like Jarmusch's older movies for that very reason: they just don't age very well. But I'm finally starting to see the comedy in his films. I think it's all dependent on the actors he chooses, because Bill Murray saves the film with his seemingly effortless comic timing (moreso than Roberto Benigni in Down By Law). Murray somehow matches an apathetic outward demeanor with internal fascination. It is truly remarkable to watch him act.

Be that as it may, I'm not the biggest fan of Jarmusch's filmmaking. He still lingers on shots for far too long when editing, making every shot begin and end 1-2 seconds before and after they should. He frequently fades in and out, both visually and aurally, which probably contributes to the feeling that this movie is more like stop-and-go traffic than fluid, smooth storytelling. It's jagged and stilted, with episodic interludes and minimal overarching structure. This is probably his best movie after Night on Earth, but I'm not sure I would recommend it to anyone who isn't already a fan. It will probably be good enough to satisfy Bill Murray fans, however, as he manages to carry the entire project on his shoulders with aplomb.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0412019/

Dead Man (1995)

1/5

Jim Jarmusch's Dead Man is one of the most uninteresting, meandering, meaningless movies I've seen since Truffaut's The Soft Skin. I sat there for two hours watching scenes transition to different scenes with the barest semblance of plot or purpose. The movie follows William Blake (Depp) as he makes his way from Cleveland to the West in the late 19th century. He gets mixed up in violence and must go on the run to save his life, but I think the title is meant to insinuate that he is already dead. People who like the movie will tell you it's about a man's transformation in the time of our country's transformation, but I think those people are just seeing stuff that isn't there. Or, perhaps, seeing the bits and pieces of stuff beneath all the garbage piled on top of it.

Johnny Depp kind of reminded me of Guy Pearce in this movie, and I mean that in a bad way. He has dead expressions and no depth. He sounds entirely uninterested in just about everything going on, even when he's supposed to be scared or excited. Regardless of whether his affect is intentional or not, it's simply boring and painful to watch. I don't even want to talk about the dialogue, because I'll just get upset. The script tries to be edgy and badass, but instead it's spoken by what sounds like bad student actors trying to be edgy and badass. Mix this bad acting (or bad directing, I'm honestly not sure which it is) with crappy special effects and cheesy old-time film techniques and you have an entirely laughable production. It's times like these I wish I had waited before burning an entire director's oeuvre until I knew I liked them.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112817/

Down By Law (1986)

2/5

Jim Jarmusch's Down By Law was an utter disappointment. The plot follows three prisoners (Benigni, Waits, Lurie) as they are sent to jail and as they escape. The movie plods along at a laborious pace; reviewers infatuated with Mr. Jarmusch may call it something more flattering like patient or rambling. Whatever you call it, it practically put me to sleep. The acting is atrocious and amateurish, although I wouldn't be surprised if someone told me it was meant to be "realist," "cinéma vérité," or some other elitist excuse for being bad. The actual filmmaking is just as low-quality as the acting. Quite frankly, this whole movie looks and feels like a film school project. And not just any film school project, but the one made by that weird kid who thinks he's got great ideas but everyone else just sees bad execution. The sound capture was pitiful; there was clearly one audio capture device and it was stuck on the front of the camera. And why is it black and white? (Probably ego, to answer my own rhetorical question.) While there was some comedy, I attribute it less to the film as a whole and more to what I can only assume is Mr. Benigni ad-libbing lines. Unless you're a big Jarmusch fan, I would avoid this movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090967/

The Secret In Their Eyes (2009)

4/5

The Secret In Their Eyes is another film that, like Cell 211, anchors its characters as immutable and already fully-formed, despite following them and their evolution over 25 years. The movie deals with the involvement of Esposito (Darín), Sandoval (Francella), and Hastings (Villamil) in the case surrounding Liliana Coloto's rape and murder by Isidoro Gómez (Godino). Esposito wants to write a book on the case 25 years later and decides to revisit Hastings to reminisce and perhaps even attempt to rekindle an old flame. Neither of them have quite forgotten the case and what it did to them; it lingers with them almost daily. However, the case is not quite as closed as they believe it to be.

The performances are excellent, filling out well-developed characters with sympathy and tenderness. The plot is above average, though not nearly as compelling as I was hoping for coming in. (I did have pretty high expectations though, for some reason.) The cinematography and editing were more than competent, but neither were all that memorable. The overall direction of the film, especially the use of flashbacks to hold the tension between the mysterious past and the uncertain present, was truly an impressive feat to watch. However, something about this film just didn't feel right to me. It didn't hit me on an emotional level for some reason; everything was too calculated. The director precisely progressed the plot to make me think and feel a certain way. It didn't feel natural. Despite my hangups, I thought this movie was an excellent crime thriller and I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1305806/

Cell 211 (2009)

4.9/5

Cell 211 is a gripping and surprising Spanish film about a prison riot. Juan Oliver (Ammann) arrives 1 day early to his new post as a prison guard, only to be knocked unconscious during an accident right before a prison riot breaks out. He regains consciousness just in time to figure out what's going on and pretends to be a new prisoner. The leader of the riot, Malamadre (Tosar), takes him under his wing. Juan Oliver must pretend to help Malamadre while simultaneously attempting to get out alive. This is only the beginning of the movie, but I'll leave the rest for you to discover on your own, because how the movie reveals itself is one of the movie's very best treasures.

I don't want to ruin it, but I feel I should mention that this movie does not have a Hollywood ending. In fact, none of the twists and turns are very Hollywood. Many reviews have called the movie completely unpredictable, but to me it feels more like a movie you do not anticipate. It propels you along at such a pace that you do not have time to think about what is to come, you can only attempt to catch your breath and digest all that has already passed.

The writing in this film is superb. It is not simply the plot, which is very good, but the characters. I have often said that people never transform over the course of a movie; instead you see into their hearts and souls more and more deeply as events pass. And you see all the nuance and subtlety that you didn't see before, so they appear to transform before your eyes into complex, fleshed-out humans. That is precisely what goes on here: Juan Oliver is the same person he was at the beginning of this movie--although we would all like to think a transformation takes place--which makes this movie all the more compelling. Absolutely spellbinding acting and crisp cinematography rounds out this fantastic film. Highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1242422/

Memories of Murder (2003)

4/5

Memories of Murder is a South Korean film based on the true story of the country's first serial killer. Detective Park (Song) is called onto the case of a local girl who was raped and murdered. He and his partner, Detective Cho (R. Kim), use simplistic reasoning and torture techniques to get confessions out of innocent suspects. But they get nowhere. It isn't until Detective Seo (S. Kim) arrives from Seoul with his more sophisticated thought process that they start making progress in the investigation.

This movie, like director Bong's later film Mother, is one that sits with you and unsettles you. It's a movie that doesn't hit you until after you've soaked it all in, but it will leave you stunned before you can even piece together everything you've seen on an emotional and thematic level. Much like the Coen brothers' work, the compositions and camera movements feel utterly precise and necessary, as if there was no other possible way to shoot this than the way Bong did. The cinematography itself is stunningly beautiful, which you can easily tell as soon as the first shot shows up on the screen. The acting is, for the most part, also very good. However, due to poor acting near the end of the film, Detective Seo's transformation from good cop to bad cop felt written instead of natural. This is almost entirely due to Kim's over-acting, which only made his character's behaviors less believable instead of more. It's a real shame, because that kind of character evolution, if it had been done properly, could have easily propelled this film into the 4.9 arena. Instead, it becomes an excellent but very flawed film that I have no trouble recommending for any fan of the mystery crime thriller.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0353969/

In the Loop (2009)

4/5

Wow. In the Loop is hilarious. It had me cracking up non-stop with unending vulgarities, random asides, and preposterous situations. The movie is supposedly a political satire--although the story arc itself never really made me laugh--about a group of politicos linked together by the possibility of war. There is Simon Foster (Hollander), who made a statement about the war being "unforeseeable," then flipflopping and suggesting that sometimes we must "climb a mountain of conflict" to reach peace on the other side. There is Karen Clark (Kennedy), who is very much against the war based on a paper recently put out by her aide Liza Weld (Chlumsky). There is Linton Barwick (Rasche), perhaps the funniest of them all, who feels a war is inevitable after receiving compelling but faked evidence from Malcolm Tucker (Capaldi). Linton and Karen both try to use Simon's quotes to defend their side, but even his new aide Toby Wright (Addison) cannot fix the situation. In fact, he ends up making it worse by sleeping with Liza and leaking story after story to a CNN friend.

If the plot sounds too intricate to follow, it's not. The personalities are so well-developed and visually distinct that you remember them and all their mannerisms well after the film has finished. The acting is on point, but I have to give credit to the brilliant, sharp, incisive script. The writing is impeccable. I can't remember the last time I saw a movie that had me laughing this hard, sitting in my apartment by myself on a lonely, fateful Sunday afternoon. The editing was also remarkable, as it effortlessly united numerous disparate stories to feel like a single tapestry of chaos. The cinematography, on the other hand, struck me as rather bland, trying to pull off a documentary feel and not really impressing. You don't have to be a politics aficionado to enjoy this film, just someone who appreciates witty dialogue and amazingly unique characters. Highly, highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1226774/

Waiting for Superman (2010)

4/5

Waiting for Superman is a well-made documentary on the state of our national education system, and it's not pretty. It gives shocking statistics to hit home just how bad our nation's youths are at literacy and math comprehension. It paints a picture in which the teachers are the good guys and the teachers' unions are the bad guys. In fact, when there are bad teachers, known even to the principals and superintendents, it reveals just how hard it is to fire them because of them holding "tenure," a watered-down version of the hard-earned university status. Any attempt at reform, either by promoting good teaching with incentives or even just replacing bad teachers with "mediocre" ones, is almost instantly struck down by the unions who want to keep the status quo. The film is disheartening to say the least, but it does give a glimmer of hope. That hope is the public charter school, created as an entity free from the local regulatory boards, with very impressive results. But they produce another problem: more students want to go than there's room for. And the solution is less than ideal: a random lottery drawing to select each year's class.

The film weaves its way across the nation as it tracks several children's perspectives and aspirations and the parents that push their hardest to provide the best education possible. Only in the second half of the film do we realize that they are all applying to various public charter schools. The climax of the film takes place in the gyms and auditoriums of each school's lottery. The movie documents the breathless anticipation of the children and their families. There are some very tender and touching scenes, as only real life can deliver.

As a documentary, the film certainly favors substance over form. This is a good thing if you're making the movie to provide easy-to-digest information, but a bad thing for anyone hoping for something more than a tutorial or editorial. As far as the directing goes, I found it somewhat self-indulgent. Mr. Guggenheim never hesitates to give his own personal thoughts or play footage from his previous film. Still, this movie brings up an important and timely topic and should, if nothing else, provide a springboard to discuss the issues. If we're lucky, it might even spark some more vigorous reform efforts.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1566648/

The Chaser (2008)

3/5

The Chaser is a slick Korean movie that is exciting, horrifying, and ultimately depressing. The plot follows Joong-ho (Kim), a dirty cop turned pimp, who recently lost two of his girls on jobs. Believing they were being stolen and sold, he asks Mi-jin (Seo) to go on the next call and text him back the address. She agrees, even though she's sick with the flu and her daughter is home alone. When she arrives, she has no service and tries to leave to find an area with better signal, but the doors are all locked. We soon find out that the customer, Young-min (Ha), is actually murdering the women, and he plans to do the same with Mi-jin.

The first part is exciting and tense. The plot progression is a little unorthodox, which gives the audience even less sure footing and ratchets up the uncertainty and fear. But it doesn't go anywhere; the second half fell flat on its face. I suppose the movie is meant to be frustrating, much like the finale in David Fincher's Seven, but I cannot get over how depressing this film is. I am having trouble figuring out a single reason for it to exist. While Seven has a similarly bleak ending, the movie as a whole feels much more complete, especially because we are given some sense as to the murderer's motives and characteristics. The Chaser, on the other hand, feels empty. Young-min is not a character--he is nothing but a faint idea--and I think the movie suffers because of it. The most credit I can give this film is that it produced a visceral reaction in me.

As for the rest of the technical aspects, they were not noticeably bad. The acting is difficult for me to assess because I found the mood and mannerisms ultimately too foreign for me to see the acting beneath it. As with almost every modern Korean movie I've seen, the cinematography is crisp and beautiful. All in all, I would only recommend this movie to fans of Korean dramas and/or people who love dark, gloomy murder thrillers. Everyone else can, and should, pass.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1190539/

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

3/5

Transformers: Dark of the Moon is a movie that is missing a lot, most notably the word "Side" in the title. It is also missing believable characters and believable dialogue. It tries to make up for it with sexy girls and 3D special effects, and it does a surprisingly good job of doing just that. The plot is, like the first two, about humans and Autobots against Decepticons, except this time it takes place in DC and Chicago. And that is the only reason I saw this movie. The Chicago scenes are amazing. It was like Source Code but reversed: I loved seeing all the buildings I was familiar with get attacked, burning to the ground with smoke wafting out the side. (I have no idea why that brings me joy.)

As for the rest of the movie, it plays like the prior two with only a modicum of improvements while retaining its numerous problems. It was still difficult to follow the robot characters and what exactly was going on in between things being blown up. The action sequences are fairly minimal and don't really keep the tension up. There is no climax and no final battle to speak of. Michael Bay tries to pull a little Forrest Gump CGI magic involving old footage of presidents, only it feels way too strained and unnatural. I thought the first half was a lot better than the second half, even though the second half has the bonus of being set in Chicago. Another positive is that the movie is hilarious, with stand-out performances by Ken Jeong, Alan Tudyk, and John Turturro. Overall, an enjoyable popcorn flick that will delight all the Chicagoans who got to see it being filmed here last year. And to everyone else: if you've seen the other two, you know exactly what you're getting into with this one.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1399103/

Gnomeo & Juliet (2011)

3/5

Gnomeo & Juliet is a clever animated film about garden gnomes. As you can probably tell by the title, it is very loosely based on the William Shakespeare play Romeo & Juliet. Except this 3D cartoon version is a comedy instead of a tragedy. Much like Toy Story, the gnomes live in a world where real people don't know that they can move and talk. And in the Capulet and Montague gardens are blue and red garden gnomes, separated by a fence, constantly at war with each other. Gnomeo (McAvoy) meets Juliet (Blunt); the two fall in love then discover that they are on opposite sides of the fence.

For the educated viewer, you can enjoy the numerous references to other Shakespeare plays. The movie is full of subtle jokes paired with more obviously hilarious scenes. It was a lot more enjoyable than I was expecting it to be, with a light atmosphere and familiar voices. There's nothing particularly impressive about anything in this movie, but it's a solid piece of entertainment to pass away a lazy summer afternoon.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0377981/

The Tree of Life (2011)

1/5

Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life is quite possibly worse than Audition. This movie is terrible from beginning to end. I don't remember another time I felt so assaulted by the inane and banal. Quite frankly, I don't know what the plot is, or even what the movie is "about." It plays a lot like David Gordon Green's George Washington, detailing a youth's summer(s) and attempting to evoke some sort of nostalgia in the audience without actually having any story. In The Tree of Life, there seems to be no real dialogue. Nobody says anything to other people. And when people do mutter something, they always whisper in raspy voices (because apparently that makes it more profound). There is an unannounced 30-minute segment detailing the origin of life, starting from the Big Bang and advancing from single-celled organisms to preposterous imaginary dinosaurs. There are random shots of the most disturbing painted clowns I have ever seen. There is no coherency and no meaning. Unfortunately, I don't think Terrence Malick is aware of that; instead he feels he needs two and a half hours to show precisely that. Ugh.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478304/

Super 8 (2011)

4/5

Super 8 is a movie that involves aliens and military cover-ups, but I believe the heart of the movie is about the magic of film. The plot follows a young group of filmmakers, including make-up artist Joe Lamb (Courtney), director Charles Kaznyk (Griffiths), and actress Alice Dainard (Fanning), after a train crash rocks the small town of Lillian. When the US Air Force comes to clean up the wreck, they keep local police in the dark as to the true nature of their cargo. When mysterious events start taking place in the town, sheriff Jackson Lamb (Chandler) steps up to the USAF to find out what exactly is going on.

A lot of reviews have compared this movie quite favorably to ET and "early Spielberg." It's true that there is a lot in common in both mood and plot--young heroes and innocent humor--but Super 8 brings a lot more to the table than just a well-done homage to its own producer. As the title suggests, the focus of Super 8 is the wonder of film. The kids are filmmakers, and they love the freedom and escape the fiction of cinema brings with it. But the most poignant, touching moment in the film is when Joe is watching an old film of his mom. Alice comes in and they just watch together, under its spell. You can tell as the silent film stock is bringing back memories and welling up emotion that no love letter or picture or locket could ever do. And in that instant you realize why this filmmaker--the kids in the movie and the real-life ones responsible for making this one--believe that the movies are magical.

But Super 8 is far from perfect. A number of the characters were flat, often feeling as if they were twisted around and manipulated to create the plot instead of true, fleshed-out individuals lost in the plot. Some of the dialogue just fell flat and sounded hollow. And the tension would occasionally drop off instead of constantly building up, but none of these negatives detract too heavily from the overall experience. This film was an absolute joy to watch. It reminded me why I go to the movies.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1650062/