The Dinner Game (1998)

4/5

The Dinner Game is hysterical. I saw this movie at Clemons Library with my friends working around me and my joy distracted all of them. It consistently made me laugh until the final freeze frame. The movie is based on a play, and it shows: it takes place in one location with a limited cast and incredibly precise dialogue. The acting was pitch-perfect for comedic timing, but some of the editing hindered the comedy and was pretty amateurish overall. There was no real music to speak of, and the cinematography/directing overall was extremely bland. But this movie is SO funny!! Highly highly recommended for pure entertainment value.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0119038/

On connaît la chanson (1997)

4/5

This film is a bit of a different turn from director Alain Resnais, who did Night and Fog, Hiroshima Mon Amour, and Last Year at Marienbad. It's a delightful romance/musical comedy about interlocking relationships and human connections. Classic French songs are lip-synched by characters to express their feelings, which can at times get a bit overbearing, but is usually a very welcome bit of excitement in what would be an otherwise talk-heavy movie. There is no action to speak of, as is typical of many French movies; there is just a bunch of people talking about love and life and human frailty. The music adds spice and humor. The writing and acting was well-done. The cinematography felt a bit video-esque (was it not shot on film?) but the editing was excellent. Odile was by far my favorite character; nearly every thing she said and the way she reacted to different situations made me laugh out loud. All in all, recommended if you like French movies, but not recommended if you're looking for a summer blockbuster or a more typical American movie.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0119828/

Serenity (2005)

4.9/5

Note: I watched this movie as a lover of the space western series Firefly, of which this film is an extension. I therefore will not separate myself from the series in writing this review by considering it a stand-alone film. If the movie interests you, then I recommend seeing the series first and then this movie.

Serenity is an amazing addition to an amazing series. It is different in mood and scope, but these changes, while perhaps not necessary, were better-suited for the feature film, I think. It is less witty and more action-oriented, more epic and less personal (for many characters, though not all). It's darker and fiercer; there is less room for jokes and smiles because the stakes are so high.

The movie fleshes out the already complex captain Mal and sympathizes River more, while most other characters are relegated to the background and expanded on very slightly. The themes presented, on choice and sin and on love's power, sometimes seem heavy-handed because of direct dialogue about it, but are thankfully never shoved down the audience's throat through repetition. Because of the series, the characters have a lot of depth going into the movie, so when they are fighting, I am on the edge of my seat hoping they will not die. And the movie goes so far in how thrilling it is; at one point I almost slumped, having lost all hope, thinking everyone would die and the only way out was for this to all be a dream (which it thankfully was not).

The acting matched the acting in the series (excellent). The cinematography was very similar, although it seemed like it tried harder. There were some shots that were much better than anything I saw in the series though. The music, sad to say, didn't live up to my expectations because I love the theme song and was quite miffed at its exclusion. Watch the series. And then watch this movie. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0379786/

The Lookout (2007)

3/5

The aptest word to describe this movie is, for me, unfulfilling. It starts out strong with an absolutely beautiful opening scene that explains the tragedy that results in Chris Pratt's head injury and debilitation that is his central characteristic throughout the rest of the movie. But from there, it never quite lives up to expectations. Coming in, I thought it was going to be a crime movie/character study à la The Beat That My Heart Skipped, but it doesn't even approach the depth, quality, or intensity that that movie contains. As is very often the case, in trying to be both kinds of movies, it succeeds at neither. Much of the story seems sloppy and unnecessary and characters come and go without being fully fleshed out. The writing relied excessively on voice-over and flash-back. The heist/crime aspect was simple and uninteresting and it took away from the emotional aspect of a character living with pain and guilt. The character study had potential, but not much else, as the movie spent more time on the plotting and execution of the bank robbery than on developing his mental anguish.

The acting by Jeff Daniels was awesome; his unique character is very memorable and well-envisioned. I didn't find Joseph Gordon-Levitt's acting spectacular, but I don't think he had much to work with. He was excellent in the very few opportunities he had to be excellent. There were some very pretty shots (in the beginning and during the actual bank heist). And while it never quite satisfied, the morsels of tenderness and emotion sprinkled throughout the movie felt real and true. I wouldn't recommend it unless you're interested in the actors, because they are really the only above average qualities this movie has.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0427470/

Eyes Without a Face (1960)

4/5

Eyes Without a Face is unique in the horror genre in that it is surreal and expressionist. It frightens through its environment and the subtly real characterizations of the "villains," not through surprise or the grotesque (although it would have been easy to, given its subject matter). The movie is about a doctor who wants to graft a face onto his daughter, who has been scarred because of a car accident that he is responsible for. That is one of its strongest points--that we understand his motivations and empathize with him. There was one part where I literally jumped back in my chair because of the frank, unexpected nature of someone's actions. The complexity of character that arose from that single action enriched the analytical groundwork of the film. Also, from a directing standpoint, the use of music and of sound overall (especially of footsteps) was brilliant.

That being said, the sound was very often low-quality; you could tell when they overlaid audio tracks because of background static. The production quality overall (such as sets, lighting, camera, etc.), editing, and much of the acting seemed amateurish. However, the idea is what carried this movie through, and it was not hindered by the poor quality of these elements.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0053459/

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/