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/

Milk (2008)

4/5

Gus Van Sant's Milk tells the incredibly powerful true story of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man elected to major public office in San Francisco during the 70's. With flawless editing and pacing, Van Sant seamlessly integrates new footage with historical footage to fully engulf you in the feel and mood of the times. The acting is tender, honest, and subdued, fitting in perfectly with the documentary realism of the film. The portrayal of the homosexual community is equally sympathetic and genuine--and enlightening and moving to all who are not members of the community. Thanks to the eloquent writing, I could feel their pain, their struggle, and their elation at every small step towards equality.

Milk is more than a simple movie; it is a cry for help and an argument for social justice. But by entrenching itself so firmly in a specific time and place, and for a specific cause, it loses a bit of its universal appeal. Harvey Milk constantly emphasized that his movement was for homosexuals, not civil rights as a whole. Regardless, gay rights will undoubtedly remain a relevant issue for most of the rest of my life. And for that, I am grateful that I saw this movie. I'm not sure of its replay value, but I highly recommend you see Milk if you haven't already.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1013753/

The Interpreter (2005)

3/5

Sydney Pollack's The Interpreter is a skillfully-made political thriller. The plot follows Nicole Kidman as a translator of African tongues. One night after hours she hears about an assassination threat. The next day she reports it and Sean Penn from the Secret Service is assigned to protect her. The only problem is he doesn't believe her, because she may be closely involved in the situation. I really liked the plot and how it unfolded; the mystery consistently intrigued me while the suspense kept me on my toes. The tense atmosphere is without a doubt the best part about the movie. I could feel my pulse racing through almost the entire second half of the movie. Unfortunately, the pieces relating to the politics were pretty generic, made more worthless by being completely fictitious.

I actually liked the acting, although I found the characters a bit cookie cutter. The writing and dialogue were poor, whereas the cinematography was adequate and the editing was excellent. The music melded perfectly with the editing to create the appropriate energy and excitement. As far as thrillers go, this is top notch. It's just the rest of the stuff that's under par. If you were interested in seeing this when it came out, I don't think you'll be disappointed. But I won't be recommending it to anyone who hasn't heard of it before.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373926/

Into the Wild (2007)

3/5

Sean Penn's Into the Wild is a touching story poorly told. Penn recounts, with a reckless abandonment of cinematic intelligence, young Chris McCandless's own reckless attempt to abandon society and live on his wits in the wild. The emotions he feels, the adventures he experiences, the people he encounters--all are striking and make this film as moving as it is. The rest is overlong dreck. The whole thing feels like one long montage, with little backbone to ground and support the story. While the cinematography was breathtaking, the editing was so rapid and hectic that it was hard to fully comprehend what was going on. Scenes extend for far too long or have no point. The music, excellent in its own right, often ruins the mood by coming in and out at times it shouldn't have. It always, and I mean always, seems out of place. Oh, and the acting was really good for the most part.

There is an extraordinary amount of inane voice-over narration that tries to make some sense out of the mess that is this movie, but it fails at that and simply pains the ears. Penn clearly does not know how to adapt, because its literary roots show in the frequent uncinematic moments that might work in a book but clearly fail in this movie. Still, it was enjoyable every now and again, and had the potential to really move an involved viewer, but it should have been 90 minutes instead of 150 and written (and directed) by someone who knows how to. Watch it if you're already interested, but I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend it to someone.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758758/

Sweet and Lowdown (1999)

2/5

Sweet and Lowdown may have been funny, but it was not an enjoyable experience. My laughter hid my inner frustrations with the movie. The story had no arc; it was merely random event after random event with nothing to link them. There was absolutely no characterization; everyone had one character trait or tic, except for Sean Penn's Emmet Ray, who had three traits. That does not make them a character. The movie was vastly uncreative, something immensely disappointing given Allen's previous films of such exceptional creativity and quality. The abundance of music was overbearing and added very little to the overall piece, unless the intent of the piece was to annoy me. Some parts were good: it was funny and the acting was good. The cinematography and camera movement were good as well. But that does not make this a good movie. It is still a bad movie. I am disappointed in Woody Allen.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0158371/