Prisoners (2013)

4/5

Prisoners is a viscerally intense and provocative morality tale about the lengths people will go to save the ones they love. The story is a difficult one to stomach: Keller Dover (Jackman) has his daughter stolen from him on Thanksgiving Day. Detective Loki (Gyllenhaal) initially suspects teenager Alex Jones (Dano), but quickly dismisses him after discovering he has the IQ of a 10-year-old child. Dover is convinced Jones is involved, however, and imprisons him in an abandoned building where he tortures him for information.

The acting is absolutely phenomenal. Jackman gives an emotionally searing performance, straight from the heart. Although his portrayal did at times seem to border on the melodramatic and overwrought, he walked that line expertly. Gyllenhaal is every bit his equal, although less explosive and incendiary. The problem with both characters (and, in fact, with almost every character) is that they don't feel unique at all. From the angry dad who takes matters into his own hands to the mother who shuts out the rest of the world to the driven detective who makes promises he can't keep, the interpersonal dynamic presented in this movie feels completely unoriginal and cliched. We've seen it before in The Lovely Bones and AMC's The Killing. That, or there is only one way families respond to tragedies involving their children.

But the movie grabs you, asphyxiates you. It has scenes of intense power and breathless anticipation. It emanates an aura of tension, an atmosphere of mystery. It's incredibly eerie. It's a promising start for director Villeneuve--he gives David Fincher a run for his money in the genre of dark, intelligent, moody psychological thrillers--and I hope he continues down this road in the future. I will definitely be watching.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392214/

True Grit (2010)

4/5

The Coen brothers' True Grit is an honest-to-goodness Western through and through. It follows 14-year-old Mattie Ross (Steinfeld) seeking revenge for the murder of her father by a drifter named Tom Chaney (Brolin). She hires US Marshal Rooster Cogburn (Bridges) to track him down; he tries his best to dissuade her, but she is steadfast in her determination. Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Damon) joins in on the hunt, as he has been following Chaney since he killed a senator in Texas and aims to bring him back there for a hefty reward. The trio bicker back and forth in delicious Coen dialogue and have some gunfights with the baddies in precise Coen fashion before the final letdown in typical Coen style.

The movie is as technically proficient as ever. There is not a single misstep or error. The cinematography is beautiful and evocative. It feels rich and warm and barren and cold in metered, measured doses. The editing enhances the cinematography by letting it breathe when appropriate and taking your breath away when the story calls for it. But where this movie shines is in the writing and the acting. I recently realized that I am a big fan of the Coens' writing. The words they put down on paper are eloquent and earthy and the way they direct their actors to speak them deadpan works to subtly downplay their elegance. Their dialogue is even better than Tarantino's--and far more poignant and nuanced. Furthermore, the Coens do this on a consistent basis, in every single film they make, which just makes us take it for granted. As for the acting, Hailee Steinfeld is a revelation to behold, dominating every scene she's in (which is essentially the whole movie). She steals the limelight from Bridges and Damon, although their performances are impressive for their grit and charm in their own rights. And wow, does she earn it. Much like Aronofsky's Black Swan, True Grit is a technically proficient film that will be remembered not for the directing or the writing, but for the passionate, unforgettable performance of a young actress with seemingly limitless potential.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1403865/

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/

The Reader (2008)

2/5

The Reader is, if nothing else, an intriguing movie; it follows the relationship between Michael Berg (David Kross and Ralph Fiennes) and Hanna Schmitz (Kate Winslet), starting from their first torrid love affair when he was 15 and she 33 and ending some 30-40 years later. The film is a romance, I suppose, with elements of the legal drama thrown in to make it more exciting. But it is a romance fraught with confusion and misunderstanding, by both those participating as well as us audience members watching. Many of the characters' actions and motiviations appear hidden, vague, or unknown by even the writer. To me, it was all too illogical to be believable. (Not illogical in the way that love can make people act irrationally, but illogical in the way that the character's mere existence is a baffling conundrum.)

To its credit, the movie has some compelling performances. All three main actors were stellar. And I found myself attracted to the idea of one man's entire life being defined and destroyed by a single adolescent summer. It is the writing and the directing that I have trouble accepting. The screenwriter merely combined hackneyed ideas like concentration camps and suicide that he thought might produce melodrama instead of filling the script with realistic characters or creative concepts. The director chose to include gratuitous nudity in the hopes of appearing artistic instead of using it tastefully and tactfully for emotional impact or some other legitimate purpose. The Reader is one of those movies that I feel caters to an audience that likes to feel smart for "understanding" it, but is in reality a movie that cannot stand on its own merits. Perhaps those people do get something out of it, but I think they're putting in most of what they're getting out. I for one got very little out of it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0976051/

Revolutionary Road (2008)

5/5

Revolutionary Road is an expansive blue ocean. It appears beautiful from afar, but roiling underneath it is sorrow and anger erupting in ferocious waves. It touches all of us, pooling at the feet of some, submerging others. I am in the latter camp; I am a victim to this devastating film. I get jitters remembering everything that happened. My pulse quickens and my knees weaken. And I can't get that nightmare out of my head.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet play Frank and April Wheeler, a young couple that recently moved into a suburban house on Revolutionary Road in the 1950's. Their happiness is a facade for the hopeless emptiness they're experiencing. Frank works at a job he can't stand and comes home to a wife who can't stand being home. They hate each other. They remain together for the sake of their children, but realize it's worse for everyone to stay in that situation. Separation is not an option. What can they do to escape their self-imposed, once-desirable imprisonment?

The acting is impeccable, heart-felt, and full. It makes the pitch-perfect writing all the more unbearable. The music infiltrates your subconscious. The cinematography stays on the sideline, subtly affecting your perceptions and focus. The editing is tight; it plays with time fluidly but intuitively. And for all the movie's effectiveness, for all of Sam Mendes's brilliance, it hurts. This is not an enjoyable film. This is not entertainment. This is a condemnation of all we hold dear in America. This is a searing indictment of our success, our greed, and even our appearance. By the end, we simply want to stop listening, to ignore it and hope it disappears. What a sorry, tired answer that is. But it is our only chance.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0959337/

Doubt (2008)

3/5

Doubt, a movie by John Patrick Shanley based on his play of the same name, is about a nun (Meryl Streep) in a Catholic school who suspects the priest (Philip Seymour Hoffman) of molesting a young child. As far as the acting goes, this movie is the one to see. Shanley is able to bring out amazing performances from his entire cast--I had no idea Amy Adams could pull out the tour de force she did. The others are perhaps superior acting jobs, and theirs are definitely more extensive and sustained, but Adams's portrayal of a recently-hired and innocent nun was the revelation for me. She exuded such emotion--such tenderness and honesty--that I was completely beside myself with empathy.

In addition to the acting, I was impressed by Deakins's cinematography, which you could tell Shanley was trying to use to separate the movie from the play. When adapting a play to the silver screen, you're losing the vivacity and involvement of a live performance, so the film needs to bring something else to the table, which has historically been in the form of cinematography. But while the cinematography was excellent, it wasn't enough to make it a memorable adaptation. The rest of the movie was not as great as I had anticipated. The script was underwhelming. Being a Tony- and Pulitzer-winning play, I was expecting phenomenal. And phenomenal is not what I got. I loved the dialogue, but the story could have used a lot of work. Everything is hinted at, bushes are beaten around, and nothing is revealed. Even if you pay strict attention the entire time, it's easy to miss out on huge plot points if you're not thinking the same thing they are. Still, the movie was pretty much what I expected, but just a bit weaker in quality than I hoped for. Definitely watch it if the trailer appealed to you.

Oh, and apparently Streep's glasses were anachronistic, but I did not find that to be distracting.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0918927/

In the Valley of Elah (2007)

4/5

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

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

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

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

The Big Lebowski (1998)

4/5

The first time I saw The Big Lebowski, I was a bit underwhelmed. I had heard the superlatives thrust about in zealous reviews, but at that time I was unfamiliar with the Coens and I didn't know "what it was that they did." Now I know, and I am truly impressed by their work here. Their inimitable style--from the precisely-crafted dialogue to the beautifully-envisioned compositions--is in full force in this movie. Unforgettable characters have emerged from forgettable roles. Simple phrases have become generational mottos. This is a movie that will remain in the collective cultural memory for a long time to come.

The humor finds itself in what the characters do and do not say and how they say it; it finds itself in their actions but more importantly in their motivations; it finds itself in the times, the places, and the moods of these individuals we slowly grow to appreciate if not love (thanks to narration by a "stranger"). While it is not particularly rare for me to laugh during a movie, it is hard for me to remember laughing so loudly, forcefully, and obnoxiously before this one.

Even so, the animated dream sequences are dated. I really don't like special effects that don't hold up over time. But there is a far more significant underlying problem I have with the film. As when I saw it the first time, I have trouble finding a point to it--something I can apply to my daily life more than simply quoting hilarious lines and/or putting them in my movie quotes quizzes. Maybe this movie is just entertainment, but I think the Coens should do more than that. I certainly know they can. But the question is whether or not I got anything more out of it than hearty laughs and good memories; and what is the answer? Does anyone have an answer in the affirmative, because I very much would like to love this movie more than I already do, and that is one major hurdle it must jump. Still, I would pop this movie in the DVD player in a heartbeat if I ever needed a quick laugh. And it's definitely worth watching if you haven't seen it already.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0118715/

Fargo (1996)

5/5

Fargo is an American classic. The darkest, funniest one I've seen--next to No Country for Old Men. Set in the folksy Midwest, it is the story of a pathetic man (William H. Macy) who hires second-rate criminals (Peter Stormare and Steve Buscemi) to kidnap his wife while the chief of police Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand) tracks them down. As events spiral wildly out of control, we catch a glimpse at just how far men will go to save themselves. And yet we laugh. At the most morbid moments. The Coens manage to integrate the holy and profane with aplomb, seemingly reckless abandon for "proper" emotional or comedic timing. Tension coexists with humor, the banal with the bizarre. The crime story is electrifying and gripping while the dialect brings an unrelenting charm to every scene. Fargo is unique and inimitable--in a word, unforgettable.

The cinematography and editing are spot-on. The snow is beautiful and evocative, the fades unobtrusive and descriptive. The writing and acting are indelible. Their accents and mannerisms are tattoos, inseparable from the characters. The technical achievements are amongst the best film has to offer. And yet we see the movie's genius in the smallest moments--the moments other writers wouldn't have envisioned and other producers wouldn't have kept. The ones that define the places, the characters, and life as a whole. We see lonely desperation as it turns to inexplicable, irreversible mistakes. We see how common sense and hard work can be all you need for success. We see the tallest reaches and deepest depths of humankind, and are shocked by them both. The ending is one of the most tender, uplifting ones I have witnessed. And not to be missed.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0116282/

Jarhead (2005)

4.9/5

Sam Mendes's Jarhead adapts Anthony Swofford's memoirs of his time in the Marines during the Gulf War. Yet it isn't really a war movie; it transcends simple genre descriptions. It constantly transforms itself from sharp humor to brutal violence, from the boredom of waiting to the tension of war, from the whitest sands to the reddest fires. These transitions are fluid, organic--a microcosm of how our lives and emotions are tossed around by events beyond our control. It is a film that must be felt to be truly appreciated.

This movie stands apart from others on its technical merits. The acting is realistic, the editing precise, special effects seamless. The cinematography by long-time Coens-collaborator Roger Deakins is constantly breathtaking--he manages to make the desert mesmerizing. The gritty, ultracontrasty look, combined with the hand-held camerawork, gave the movie a sense of realism. The musical choices and placement elevated it into evocative poetry though, which made the movie a much fuller experience. Another reason I love this movie is because it shows the director's evolution and expansion to take full advantage of the medium of film. His first movie after directing plays was American Beauty, and since then he has moved to more and more cinematic movies like Road to Perdition and now Jarhead.

While rewatching it, I noticed some parts I forgot were there, points in time that seemed less necessary, scenes that were looser and floppier. The editing wasn't as tight as I remembered. Other than that, though, I can think of no major points against this movie. It is beautiful, powerful, and meaningful. Do not pass this up.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0418763/

No Country for Old Men (2007)

5/5

Watching this movie again, after contemplating it for half a year, I am struck by how much I remember. How every single scene in my memory matches perfectly what I was watching on screen today. Every frame is burned in my brain. The story allegedly focuses on a cowboy who, upon finding a stash of heroin and two million dollars in cash, is chased by a ruthless killer who will stop at nothing to retrieve the money. But to say that is what the movie is about is to deny it depth. It is not about a specific story set in a specific place and time, but about the darkness in man, the descent of society, and how we are helpless to prevent our own downfall. Aside from the pure thrill rush of seeing such a flawlessly-crafted movie, its insight into humanity will ensure its place in the annals of film history.

No Country for Old Men is the latest by the Coen brothers, who are known for their ability to remold every genre and inject humor into even the darkest of situations. The first time I saw this movie, I don't think I ever laughed. Or smiled. I was too scared to. In terms of suspense, this movie outshines even The Silence of the Lambs. But there are so many humorous moments to even out the bleak, soulless remainder of the movie. What the Coens have achieved is an atmosphere that is completely unique; they have put us in a world that is completely their own. We have no way of predicting what will happen next or how the movie will end because we have never set foot in a world quite like this one.

Technically, there is not a single misstep or error. Every composition and camera movement is accomplished with such purpose and precision. There is something tranquil and calming about the way they shoot the barren landscapes, terrifying and tense about the dark hotels and pooling blood. The editing is pristine, and its role extends past mere function into thematics. In the Coens' refusal to show certain events we consider essential, we realize the true essence of the movie. The acting by Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem is spot-on, but Tommy Lee Jones's portrayal of Ed Tom Bell is absolutely spellbinding. He quite literally becomes his character, emanating his very being without needing to speak a single line. A shift in his weight or a sluggish turn and we know more about him than any words could tell. That is not to say the dialogue is unnecessary--it is brilliant and profound, unnerving and unforgettable. At the end of this movie, you will sit there stunned. And you will remember it for a long time to come.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0477348/

The Ladykillers (2004)

4/5

The Ladykillers is a truly hilarious movie, both while watching it and while remembering it. Tom Hanks, Irma P. Hall, J.K. Simmons, and Marlon Wayans are unforgettable. Their characters are off-the-wall on paper, but portrayed with such vivacity and honesty to make them fleshed out and believable. The story (crime), the cinematography (crisp), and the dialogue (black comedy) is undeniably Coen. The brothers Coen have practically outdone themselves in shot composition and camerawork; every frame of this movie is utterly pristine, precise, and pretty.

Even so, the story wraps itself up a bit too nicely at the end. The introduction to the characters, while extremely funny, felt conventional and uninspired. The dialogue, specifically from Hanks's character, is extraordinarily fast-paced. It could be argued that this somewhat diminishes your enjoyment on the initial viewing but it also gives huge replay value as you get jokes you missed the first time. I honestly don't have many more cons about this movie. It is exquisite.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0335245/