Blood Diamond (2006)

3/5

Blood Diamond starts out strong and ends strong, but the middle wobbled. Its focus was action, while the rest was drama. The story as a whole and the acting by all three main characters was quite good. As a result, several scenes stood out as very powerful ones. The action in the movie was the archetype of relentless tension. However, the directing, writing, editing, and music were all adequate, but nothing special.

I thought it tried too hard to be too many things, which made each thing seem less important than if the movie had just been about that. It talks about conflict diamonds, child soldiers, the general situation in Africa, reporting and smuggling as professions, and family--but none quite satisfactorily. The love story between DiCaprio and Connelly was so forced and unnecessary. The final 5-10 minutes of the movie felt like poor filmmaking to me, telling us nothing we didn't already know and weakening the impact and power of the piece.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0450259/

Breathless (1960)

5/5

Breathless must have taken the world by storm when it first came out. It is endlessly fun, inspired, and inventive. Godard undoubtedly had a blast while making it, because his joy seeps its way into every frame of this masterpiece. This movie quite possibly single-handedly redefined cinema, acting as the next step in its evolution. The novel techniques utilized are so raw, you feel like you're literally on the cutting edge. Breathless innovates on all fronts: technique/style and story/content.

The most noticeable technical achievement is the use of the jump cut, which Godard invented during the editing of this movie. The running time was too long, but he didn't want to cut out any whole segment, so he cut out boring snippets here and there, even if they were in the middle of dialogue. The jump cuts make for an undeniably unique style that invariably pulls you in: there is nothing to bore you, it is all cut out! He also expands on Truffaut's use of outdoor tracking shots started in The 400 Blows. And the music is phenomenal.

The story, what little backbone there is to speak of, lets itself get easily distracted. While Michel is on the run from the police for killing a cop, he nevertheless finds the time to hang out with his girlfriend Patricia and discuss life and love, grief vs. nothingness, and the differences between men and women and Americans and Parisiens. And this distraction suddenly becomes the focal point of the story, as they just talk and talk and talk. But the dialogue is amazing: it is witty, romantic, and philosophical all at once. It further distracts itself, as Patricia goes to a press screening of the novelist Parvulesco. They interview him, which is really just an excuse for Parvulesco to respond with eloquence on points of view that probably belong to Godard. On a side note, I love how the French New Wave embraces self-reference--Michel peripherally mentions Bob le flambeur, a character in a Melville film of that same name that came out a couple years prior. (Melville also plays the role of the novelist Parvulesco.)

There are some flaws. The movie can sometimes feel amateurish, with basic camerawork, very rudimentary or nonexistent lighting setups, and forced or odd editing. However, it was never meant to mimic a big budget production, and never pretends to do so. Some shots/scenes go on for far too long, which is more painful in this movie because everything else is cut so short. Those objection are extremely minor considering this movie's place in history and the sheer joy you get from watching it. I will end this review with my favorite line in the movie for you to ponder.

Patricia: "What is your greatest ambition in life?"
Parvulesco: "To become immortal, and then die."

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0053472/

300 (2006)

2/5

300 tries to be visually stunning, but doesn't quite succeed. Buildings look like unfinished Maya renderings. The thing that separates this movie from other movies that use CGI is the extent to which it's used, not the quality of it. There were only three scenes I really liked. The first was the shot of young Leonidas killing the wolf. The second was the action sequence where the two Spartans were advancing together. The third involved the undulating Oracle, because it was so surreal to watch and captured the mysticism it was intending so perfectly. It was also incredibly sexy.

But the rest of the movie sucked. When the actors spoke their lines, it was like watching piss spurt out of their mouths--a feat Sameer considers comedy, but one that I cringe at. It took a very long time for any real action to start, and when it came, it came in jumps and starts. To be quite honest, it was a pretty boring movie. There was a sex scene that was done in such a bizarre fashion that it made me feel almost as uncomfortable as watching the sex scene in Munich. The ending was awful; it should have ended 15 minutes earlier. Also, the ludicrous construction of the narration was laughable, unnecessary, and just plain bad filmmaking--on par with, if not exceeding, the reason for narration in Million Dollar Baby. What Jed didn't like about the movie, and I agree, is that there was so much potential in the story that the movie just threw out the window. Wholly unrecommended, although it might make a cool video game... at least to look at.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0416449/

Breach (2007)

4/5

Breach is a startlingly terrifying character study of Russian spy Robert Hanssen. The genius behind this movie is the subtlety with which his hidden layers are revealed; it isn't until the end of the film that you realize what kind of a monster this man is. And wow, the final shot is ridiculously powerful--an incredible ending to an incredible movie.

Chris Cooper's acting was spectacular, on par with his performance in American Beauty. Laura Linney was also fantastic, aided by an excellent script that had witty dialogue at times and powerful emotions at others. The directing and editing were also good, surprisingly so. The rather hackneyed and trite montage where they reveal Hanssen's betrayals was pulled off with ease and had an astoundingly powerful effect on me. It was as if I were in Eric O'Neill's place, learning of all of this for the first time and being shocked into submission by the flood of information of someone I used to respect.

Ryan Phillippe's acting was not great, but not bad either. A better choice might have been Hayden Christensen. The cinematography and music did nothing more than merely get the job done--they didn't stand out in any way. Also, there might be some differences of expectations about this movie. One thing that might turn people off to this movie is that the reasons for Hanssen's espionage are never really investigated in depth, although the movie never promises or suggests that it will do such a thing. There wasn't much in the way of action. In fact, the movie was quite chatty (but I love good dialogue). In the end though, none of these negatives really bother me at all--this is a great movie and highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0401997/

Hustle & Flow (2005)

3/5

This movie was surprisingly entertaining, from its stunning opening shot and intro credits to the equally extraordinary closing shot. The beginning had a style that reminded me of Pulp Fiction without feeling like it was copying it. After the beginning, the filmmaking became pretty boring stylistically as the main story started to take over--which was fortunately pretty interesting in concept, although not particularly original. The script itself wasn't very good, but I loved Terrence Howard's accent, especially the way he said man (it made me think of Pacino in Scarface, not that they sounded similar). The directing was really good in some parts, albeit uneven overall. I'm interested in what this new director can come up with next. I'm also interested in new projects Terrence Howard takes on, because his acting was phenomenal. The music was absolutely extraordinary, and they captured the excitement of music-making exquisitely. Overall a very entertaining movie, if a bit uneven at times.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0410097/

Children of Paradise (1945)

5/5

Children of Paradise is wondrous. There are so many scenes of such magnificent power; it must be seen to be believed. From the opening shot of carnival (with undoubtedly 200+ extras), I knew I was in for a treat. It is one of the most engrossing movies I have ever seen. Funny at times, sad at others. And in just the right proportions. Unique yet universal. The three hour plus running time went by so fast; I would continue watching this if it were 24 hours long, or longer. The camerawork, dialogue, and acting in this movie carry themselves with such authority, you tell yourself that this is how movies are made. Every shot in this movie is so precise, so absolute--you can't possibly imagine it being better if anything had been changed.

The screenplay was written by the poet Jacques Prévert, and it shows. Every sentence is a poem. The acting matches, and acting of such high caliber by a cast as large and diverse as in this movie is a rarity. But Carné's work as director somehow manages to outshine even those aspects. He understands cinema so intimately. The framing, the timing, the background (in each shot and of each character), the movement (of the camera and the actors in front of it)--all are delivered with such pinpoint accuracy. The outward simplicity belies the necessary technical skill. But the movie is incredibly self-aware, an entity poking fun at itself while standing firm in its beliefs. And it is a veritable goldmine when it comes to analysis.

I really cannot think of any negatives. Like I said before, I can't possibly imagine it being better if anything had been changed. This movie is without a doubt a masterpiece of the classic style of filmmaking.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0037674/

The Grand Illusion (1937)

4/5

The Grand Illusion refers to war--the Great War, and every other war. Renoir shows how life and social interactions remain unchanged in times of war; are we really in a war then? But its thematic underpinnings go so much deeper. Countries themselves are illusions, separated only by man-made, self-imposed differences. Even language is an illusion; with the right person speaking, the right emotions on display, the engaged listener, it doesn't even matter what words are coming out of their mouth. This was Renoir's point of view, and it seems a little too idealistic and romantic for me to believe. Also, I was not particularly impressed with the acting, the editing, or the music, but the story (on thematic and emotional grounds) and the camerawork were absolutely stunning. Without a doubt, Renoir knows long tracking shots and mise-en-scene.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0028950/

Princess Tam Tam (1935)

3/5

I didn't know going in that this movie was supposed to be a comedy, so I was pleasantly surprised. My favorite part about the movie was the use of transitions in the beginning (they sort of deteriorated after the first fifteen to twenty minutes, but they were awesome fun while they lasted). It would cut so that the composition stayed the same, while the people and places changed. For example, he cut from the shadows of a couple in France to the shadows of another couple in Tunisia.

A lot of the movie felt out of place. I don't think the director was very good. He reminds me of Ed Wood; he had big ideas, but a small budget and no editing talent. The acting was over-the-top. There were sound problems. It went into song and dance, which I wasn't expecting, more often than I would have liked. All in all, not a bad movie. It was pretty fun to watch, especially because I liked those gimmicky transitions.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0026891/

The Prestige (2006)

4/5

I went into The Prestige not expecting to like it, as I hate all other Christopher Nolan movies (Batman Begins, Insomnia, Memento), but I found this one surprisingly entertaining. As a story involving competition between illusionists, it's very clever, but can at times be too clever. The script is excellent and the acting matches. I thought the camerawork and style did not distract from the quality of the piece, as it did in his other movies. I liked how Nolan was not afraid to tread into other territories than just the main rival magician storyline (I especially liked the part where Fallon comforts the daughter when her parents are arguing). There were a lot of subtle touches and hints of things to come, e.g. the little boy crying about the dead bird, asking why its brother had to die.

The movie is definitely too long; it very barely manages not to feel like an ordeal towards the end. I still don't like Nolan's obsession with nonlinear storytelling because it feels like he's making the movie artificially more complicated so when the dumb audience figures out the timing of each scene, they feel smart and therefore like the movie more. Much of the inherent deception seemed superfluous and could have easily been cut out to make the movie tighter and more engaging. Indeed, a lot of the movie did seem extraneous in general (for example, why was Thomas Edison involved?). Even so, it was a very enjoyable moviegoing experience and is highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0482571/

Pan's Labyrinth (2006)

4/5

For me, Pan's Labyrinth didn't live up to the hype. It's still a good movie though: vividly envisioned and surprisingly deep (emotionally and thematically). The mood was pitch perfect throughout, with nothing feeling different when switching from the real world to the fantasy realm. The interconnectedness between the two environments is perhaps a bit hidden if you don't discuss the movie afterwards, and can be easily missed. The acting on the part of the little girl was absolutely incredible (I am thinking specifically of the scene where she is begging her brother not to hurt her mother when he is born).

The transitions killed me; as Erik said, it was like Star Wars all over again with the ludicrous wipes in every conceivable direction and variety every five seconds. I felt the violence was gratuitous and probably didn't add that much to the mood (although I obviously can't be certain). There were even some inconsistencies in the violence; sometimes nothing happened when someone got shot in the head (no bullet holes or blood coming out of their face), while other times it was senselessly grotesque. Regardless, it's a thoroughly entertaining movie that can generate healthy discussion afterwards; just be wary of how graphic the violence in the film is.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0457430/