Apocalypto (2006)

4/5

Apocalypto is a thrilling, edge-of-your-seat action movie. The pace never lets up, and the action sequences are on par with some of the best moments from Miami Vice. The violence is raw and gruesome, but never too much to handle. Much of the filmmaking is old school and calculated, such as the build-up of tension and even the action itself (taking out enemies one by one). Something I respect about the movie is that Gibson doesn't make this just an action movie; it is also a statement about society. One thing I like is how minor details are brought back later on in important ways--it really hits home Gibson's message about fate and destiny. It was really cool to see Jaguar Paw "become" a jaguar and also change from being the hunted to the hunter.

Well, I went in thinking it would be an epic story, but it turned out to be a simple action movie (albeit a very good one). A lot of situations seemed to go on too long, although individual scenes worked extremely well. The camerawork and editing overall were somewhat unimpressive and uninspired, but there were several key shots that were just stunning (for example, when the priest holds up the heart in front of the crowd after the first sacrifice). Also, Gibson had this strange fascination with slowing down the video in the most bizarre of places, which made for a really jarring effect sometimes. Taken as a whole, though, this is a fantastic action movie and highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0472043/

Mysterious Skin (2004)

4/5

This movie is first and foremost incredibly gay, but that is just the necessary backdrop for an emotional journey into the lives of two tormented youths. The editing often faded from one boy's face/body to the other's to give the impression that they were somehow connected, if not the same. Yet they both react to the same situation in two vastly different ways, one with ignorance and the other with embrace. I may have slightly "ruined" the ending, but I don't think what happened was really a mystery; it's merely the end of a journey of self-discovery, which is really the heart of the film. And this journey is expressed vividly by amazing acting all around.

Being so exquisitely and flamboyantly gay, it limits its message to a very specialized audience. While the movie was effective, I wasn't quite sure what its point was with a lot of scenes. It seemed like there was a gratuitous amount of unnecessarily explicit sexual encounters for the sake of either making you disgusted or depressed at the depth of depravity in our society. Some characters, like some scenes, didn't really have points and were just there to change up the scenery. The editing was extremely artsy and made the movie feel pretentious, which took away from the feeling of the story being realistic and raw. Even so, I think it's an extremely well-made movie, but definitely not for everyone's palate.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0370986/

Monsieur Verdoux (1947)

4.9/5

Charlie Chaplin's movie are always sublimely entertaining from start to finish, and Monsieur Verdoux is no different. It is, however, extremely different in style from his silent comedies. There's no real body humor to speak of, which is certainly Chaplin's strongest aspect. But who would've thought that the silent master was also so adept with words? The wit in this movie shines--it is on the same level as Kind Hearts and Coronets. The plots are also very similar, but being a Chaplin movie, Verdoux has an important message as well: the world is tumbling downhill, but a little kindness can make it all seem worth it. The two most important scenes arise from the same plot device, the first being one of the most tender, delicate scenes of emotion I've seen in any movie, the second being the most side-splittingly hilarious scene I've seen in a long time. The way Chaplin is able to pull this off with such ease in the same movie is a testament to his ability as a filmmaker.

It starts off a little wobbly; it just sort of sets the stage without really being very funny. The movie also feels a little bit jumpy, moving from one story to the next in a sometimes erratic fashion. M. Verdoux's real family is introduced somewhat suddenly and ignored almost equally abruptly. To be more nitpicky, it was a bit bizarre to see Chaplin with a French mustache instead of his signature stubby one, but I thought it worked well and was incredibly funny. It was also a little off-putting to see so little physical humor in a Chaplin movie, and not something you'd expect, but Chaplin is able to make the change with style and panache, and is equally able to ensure that you don't regret it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0039631/

The Man Who Would Be King (1975)

4/5

The Man Who Would Be King is a rousing adventure movie, one of the few in the genre. It was able to be serious and funny, epic and personal, adventurous and thought-provoking. There is some real emotion on screen because the acting by all parties was excellent. Huston's direction (The Maltese Falcon, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre) was equally impressive. Some of the shot compositions were just unreal. I really liked how the plot fit together so well; seemingly minor details were brought back later on in big ways.

It does feel a bit dated, with oversaturated colors and bizarre language. The vernacular is somewhat off-putting at first, but you slowly get used to it and it helps put the entire picture in a different world. The music chimed in at weird places sometimes, or it felt like it wasn't the right mood. Sometimes the editing was a bit too blunt. As an adventure movie, it must inevitably be compared to Indiana Jones and, unfortunately, I don't think it's nearly as good, but it's still a really entertaining movie!

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0073341/

Lucky Number Slevin (2006)

3/5

Lucky Number Slevin is, all things considered, a pretty entertaining movie. It's very fun, clever, and exciting, with an incredibly well-thought out twist at the end to make you sit up and pay attention. Unfortunately, because it's set up that way, it probably doesn't have a very good replay value. The twists at the end got a bit too ludicrous to be believable, and certainly unnecessary. And in explaining every minutiae of plot twists, the pacing suffers. It is especially exasperating when you've already figured out half of it, but they spend five minutes explaining anyway. The action was almost nonexistent; where present, it was obscured by bad editing techniques and flashy special effects. The camerawork was absolutely atrocious, which probably was one reason the editing was so jarring and gimmicky. While the idea was good, the script itself was pretty terrible; other than a snicker here or there, it was entirely bland and self-indulgent. But all in all, the movie is supposed to be a gangster/con movie, and it pulls it off pretty well.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0425210/

Central Station (1998)

4/5

What I like most about Central Station is that it has the courage to be realistic instead of sappy and commercial. The heroine is an unattractive, unmarried woman who's gotten used to making a quick buck learning about peoples' lives and deluding herself into thinking she has the power to decide their fates. (She writes letters for people, but sometimes doesn't mail them.) She changes over the course of the movie, but not all at once, and not without making mistakes and falling back a few steps every once in a while. And that's really what this entire story is about, to me; the evolution of this one woman. What I think elevates the movie is that there is this much depth given to one or two other characters as well, so multiple people on multiple viewings can extract multiple meanings from it and be touched by it in different ways.

The music was usually very effective, but had a tendency to be incredibly overbearing and misplaced, which spelled melodrama (although thankfully the rest of the movie did not succumb to such misspelling). The cinematography was also quite good, although again had a tendency to be too "Hollywood." Sometimes it seemed as if the film wandered or took a while to find its place, but all in all it was exceptional emotional filmmaking.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0140888/

Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring (2003)

4/5

I really enjoyed this movie. It's very simple and thought-provoking. There is almost no dialogue because there doesn't need to be; it's an ideology and doesn't need to be grounded in a certain time or place with certain characters saying certain words. One thing I love about movies is a cyclic nature, or ending in the same place where you begin, except with a completely different understanding of that same situation. That is the essence of this movie and something that completely held me to the movie from beginning to end. I didn't look at it from a religious perspective, which is perhaps the manner in which its creator intended it to be viewed. However, by looking at it solely in terms of Buddhism, one may inadvertently ignore some meanings that go beyond original intent, just as viewing it sans religion may have inhibited a different interpretation that the director desired.

There are some slow parts, but it doesn't drag on for too long; it's always at the very least a little interesting. They had a beautiful location and pretty much did nothing about it. How can you forgive them for it? They had the opportunity to make this the prettiest movie ever and just wasted it with simple shot compositions, bland colors, and uninsightful editing. The acting, what little there was, was nothing to write home about. Its meaning is somewhat lost due to the exclusivity of content; there are many times I felt I was missing out on some subtle but incredibly meaningful actions that could only be understood by someone raised in Korean or Buddhist cultures. However, it could be a positive, since it opened my mind up to countless possibilities of meaning that actually helped overall. The message is where this movie shines, and for its ability to express its theme so pragmatically yet leave a firm grasp on that theme elusive, I give it four stars.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0374546/

Come and See (1985)

2/5

This movie is absolutely terrible, and what makes it worse is that it's so long. But worse than its length is the poor editing, which makes it feel even longer than it actually is! You look at each scene and wonder why it lasted so long. There are pretty much no lighting setups, so the movie looks incredibly low quality and almost documentary. Except it's not, a fact made obvious by the melodramatic overacting, propagandist narrative, and artsy camerawork. So many straight-on closeups of bad acting, so many long tracking shots of people running; they detract from both the content and the craft. Heinous.

The concept was interesting, and specific scenes showed the German atrocities against Russian towns very effectively. The end was mesmerizing, but I'm not really sure what its point was. This entire movie has far too much confidence in itself considering the final product. These are the only reasons I'm not giving this movie one star.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0091251/

The Crow (1994)

2/5

I had high hopes for this movie. I like Alex Proyas (Dark City and I, Robot) and I wanted to see how Bruce Lee's son turned out. Unfortunately, the movie was terrible. The acting on all parts was so contrived, it was painful to hear the actors talk. In fact, I cherished the moments of action, not because they were good (there were in fact not good), but because it meant there was no more bad acting. At least for the time being. The dialogue was utterly lacking--it was merely a means to tell the story without images. The music, which may have been good stand-alone, was heinous when used in the movie. And the thing with the guitar didn't work at all.

Even though most of it is terrible, there are some absolutely amazing shots in this movie. Some shots are so cool, so pretty, and so well-carried out that's it shocking to see them in the same movie as the crappy dialogue, acting, and music. The pacing worked really well; it was never boring per se, just bad. Also, the movie was surprisingly gritty, graphic, and violent, which actually worked really well for the environment it attempted to show. Overall, not recommended.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0109506/

Halloween (1978)

3/5

I was really excited going into this movie because I absolutely loved Carpenter's remake of The Thing. Halloween is a great horror movie, but I was a bit disappointed because it wasn't as good as The Thing. One genius aspect to Carpenter's direction was his use of music; he used it to build up tension when nothing tense was going on and took it away when something exciting started happening. He achieved a constant tension, in a sense, where you're always on the edge of your seat; the fear doesn't come in bursts like modern slasher flicks. Also, there's a lot of subtle shot composition and good ideas; unfortunately, most of the time they are just self-indulgent filmmaking to the point of hurting the overall movie.

It still feels like a late 70's movie because of the dialogue and fashion--it's not timeless, as I was hoping it would be. And it never actually scared me. I just watched it and said, oh, wow, that's cool. The slow pacing sometimes doesn't achieve its goal of building tension and you realize that what you're watching is just really really boring. The murder in the beginning started off as a really great and ballsy idea, but as it went on and on, it ceased to serve its function and actually hindered your appreciation of it. Which is a shame, 'cause it really was an awesome idea.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0077651/