Gattaca (1997)

4/5

Gattaca takes place in the not-too-distant future where genetically engineered children are the norm and babies made out of love are scorned and treated like dirt. They are forced to become the janitors to the better off, for no other reason than because their genes show a higher predisposition to heart disease or other illness. Their DNA matters more than their willpower. In this dystopian future we find Ethan Hawke as an "In-Valid" who dreams of going into space. He takes on the identity of a recently-paralyzed Jude Law and is soon on his way to the stars. When the mission director is unexpectedly murdered, he must keep his secret from getting out.

This wonderful treat is a provocatively-envisioned and beautifuly-shot film. The acting is spot-on, although the characters themselves can be a bit dull and uninteresting. The set and costume design are impeccable, both believable and beautiful. The editing and music are nothing to write home about, except for the audacious Schubert played as only a twelve-fingered pianist could. This movie gives you something to think about and talk about long after the film ends, and isn't that reason enough to watch it?

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/

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/

The Producers (2005)

3/5

The Producers, a remake of Mel Brooks's directorial debut, follows the travails of two men who try to get rich overselling a play destined to fail: Springtime for Hitler. It was funnier than I expected, though I didn't expect much. I don't much like Brooks; his humor is generally not my style. Be that as it may, I did laugh a significant amount during the movie. (Not a whole bunch, mind you, but a significant amount nonetheless.) Most of the humor was brought to the forefront while some of it was left subtly in the background for the vigilant to pick up on. I did enjoy the screwball antics of the characters, although their mannerisms were a bit out of place and unnecessary, as if they were trying too hard to make the characters unique. Nathan Lane had a surprisingly Gilbert Gottfried-esque voice that kept making me think of Iago. The music was surprisingly catchy, though it did get old near the end. The rhymes and jokes in the songs were really really well done, I thought. The acting, enh. The cinematography, not bad. The editing, clunky at first and much more fluid towards the end. The script and dialogue, pretty funny. At 130 minutes, the movie seems a bit long for a comedy musical, though it never really felt boring or overlong (although I was doing the dishes and moving around for some of it). Overall, I recommend the movie to Brooks fans even though his original is probably more to their tastes, but to those who don't like him or don't like screwball comedies, you should probably pass on it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0395251/