The Ladykillers (2004)

4/5

The Ladykillers is a truly hilarious movie, both while watching it and while remembering it. Tom Hanks, Irma P. Hall, J.K. Simmons, and Marlon Wayans are unforgettable. Their characters are off-the-wall on paper, but portrayed with such vivacity and honesty to make them fleshed out and believable. The story (crime), the cinematography (crisp), and the dialogue (black comedy) is undeniably Coen. The brothers Coen have practically outdone themselves in shot composition and camerawork; every frame of this movie is utterly pristine, precise, and pretty.

Even so, the story wraps itself up a bit too nicely at the end. The introduction to the characters, while extremely funny, felt conventional and uninspired. The dialogue, specifically from Hanks's character, is extraordinarily fast-paced. It could be argued that this somewhat diminishes your enjoyment on the initial viewing but it also gives huge replay value as you get jokes you missed the first time. I honestly don't have many more cons about this movie. It is exquisite.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0335245/

Stalker (1979)

4.9/5

Stalker is one of those science fiction movies that is not about the action and adventure of space or the future, but about the mystery of the unknown. Watching it reminded me of The Fountain, not only because of their difficult-to-decipher narratives and symbols, but also because of their incredibly beautiful imagery. Tarkovsky holds the extended shots to their breaking points, and is able to do so because we are so awed by what he is showing. There is much in the shots (and the story and the dialogue) to pick apart and look at in myriad ways. I have a feeling that when I watch this again (and I'm certain I will) the movie will seem to tell a wholly different tale. Similar to The Fountain, the movie is a journey--a philosophical one, a metaphorical one, and at its heart an emotional one.

The basic narrative describes the Stalker leading the Professor and the Writer out of a gray city into the Zone, which houses a room where their innermost wishes will come true. And with such a simple premise comes one of the most complex and engrossing movies I have ever seen. The characters are intricate and diverse, aided by immensely talented acting. The cinematography was absolutely breathtaking, as was the editing and the music. The concept for the story and the directing kept me enraptured. Unfortunately, I did find some of the shots go on for too long. The meaning of the movie as a whole was hidden to the point where it seemed almost nonexistent unless one were desperately searching for it (as the characters within the movie are). Perhaps that is part of the point it's making? The seemingly incomprehensible nature of the film can dissuade viewers, as can the two hour and forty-five minute running time, but the movie can be a mind-blowing experience if you let it be.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0079944/

Aladdin (1992)

4/5

Aladdin is a Disney classic, well-loved by all. Watching it again brought me back to when I first saw it as a child. I could remember all the times I laughed, sang along, and got scared. It's a remarkable whirlwind of an experience. Robin Williams is incredible as Genie, as is Gilbert Gottfried as Iago. The rest of the acting, enh. Acceptable. I was surprised to see the use of CGI in the movie, forgetting it had been there. It was actually quite seamlessly interwoven with the drawn animation for its time and to the untrained eye (but not so much for me now). The music is just plain unforgettable. The plot is a bit simple and contrived; there's not much there except to propel the characters to do the next thing on the Disney to do list. The jokes were very kid-oriented, with a couple lines thrown in there for the adults. I think there is a shift though in modern animation, with movies like The Incredibles and Shrek having a much greater percentage of adult jokes than previously. But there are also almost no songs to sing along to anymore, which saddens me. Perhaps it is for this reason that Aladdin is one of those treasures you always remember. They just don't make 'em like they used to.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0103639/

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

4/5

I found Shaun of the Dead to be a very entertaining movie. I laughed more than I thought I would and I was on the edge of my seat more than I thought I would be. (To be honest, I had no idea what to expect.) It is a British movie, and as such has British humor, which I like. I think the reason that this movie was so successful is because it's so inventive. It is like almost no other movie I have seen. Yes, it tries to incorporate more genres than it can handle, but I don't think the point was to be a romantic comedy and a zombie horror movie and a spoof, but to mix those into a wholly new genre. It's able to create a world that is believable in the same way that fantasy worlds can be believable. The characters just fit in the worlds so well.

It is a surprisingly well-produced film, with excellent cinematography and editing. The music was also quite good. I think a lot of the humor fell a bit flat though--there's nothing worse in a comedy than a joke nobody laughs at. The story was surprisingly engrossing, the characters very fleshed out, and the tension palpable. There were emotional parts that hit harder than in a drama because I wasn't expecting them. Overall, though, it's hard to recommend. I think it requires a specific audience to enjoy. If you only like romantic comedies or you only like zombie horror movies or you only like spoofs, you might not like this movie. But if you're open to trying out creative new movies, then you might want to check this one out.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0365748/

Mouchette (1967)

1/5

Two one-star movies from the same director. Does Robert Bresson have a talent for making terrible movies or what? And he is somehow critically acclaimed and lauded by fans. He doesn't believe in acting, dialogue, or emotions. He knows nothing of cinematography, lighting, and editing. He disregards all traditional aspects of filmmaking to generate some self-indulgent form of "pure, austere" cinema. Only it doesn't work. It doesn't interest your emotions, your intellect, or your gut. In fact, it does nothing for you. And it has got to be the most boring movie I've ever seen where stuff actually happens. It's just the most banal, unimportant, and insignificant things that are occurring. The screenshot is about as exciting as the movie gets. How does Bresson make an 80 minute movie feel like an 800 minute movie? Don't watch this movie. Ever. Under any circumstances.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0061996/

Grindhouse (2007)

4/5

Grindhouse is pure entertainment of the most guilty form. And two movies for the price of one! With the most hilarious trailers in between them! I don't remember the last time I had this much unadulterated fun in a movie theater. I've seen "better" movies in theaters recently, but never enjoyed myself this much.

The first movie, Planet Terror, is from Robert Rodriguez, who has always loved the exaggerated. This is why the El Mariachi trilogy was so successful--it is excessive. But in Grindhouse, Rodriguez really lets loose. And being a grind house film, he has an excuse to. Planet Terror is everything I expected: gory, gross, and cheesy. Heads explode, penises melt, guns attached to amputated stubs shoot rockets. This is the kind of movie you'll watch in a theater and come out cheering, "THAT WAS AWESOME!" But it doesn't just copy other movies without a life and mind of its own. There is a "missing reel" in the movie, which Rodriguez cleverly uses to advance the plot without wasting our time. Rodriguez also uses stock footage effects to enhance our moviegoing experience, rather than detract from it. This is loads of fun, but be warned: it is disgusting and definitely not for everyone's palate.

The second movie, Death Proof, is from Quentin Tarantino. Every single one of Tarantino's movies has been a spin on a typical genre, and Death Proof is no exception. Like most of his movies, there is a ton of dialogue, and it is all luscious. It is like silk in your ear. But coming after Rodriguez's movie, I felt a bit disappointed. Wasn't this supposed to be a grind house film? Well, it is, in a way, and it isn't, in Tarantino's way. It has the same elements: sexploitation, blaxploitation, psychotic murderers, and old muscle cars. But there is something undeniably fresh about the way Tarantino puts it all together. And despite what I said coming out of the theater, upon reflection I see it as a movie that can and should stand on its own as an excellent example of Tarantino's style. It is actually good filmmaking. I don't know how well it works as the second half of Grindhouse, because Planet Terror is raw, old-school, brainless fun and Death Proof is polished, new, inventive art. It's an interesting dichotomy. Regardless, I would recommend you check Grindhouse out in theaters if you still can, because this is not to be missed on the big screen.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0462322/

Diabolique (1955)

5/5

Diabolique grabs you from the start and never lets you go. It is at once mysterious and intense, but it continues to excite because the underlying reason for the fear shifts throughout the film. The tension in the beginning is a result of the way M. Delassalle abuses his wife and mistress (to the point where they console each other). In the middle it is caused by the imminent murder of M. Delassalle by the two women. And for the last half of the movie, the tension reaches a peak because M. Delassalle's dead body has gone missing.

This movie is perfectly crafted, from theme to execution. Watching this movie is one of those rare treats in cinema where every aspect of filmmaking comes together, and without flaw. The lighting and cinematography work on a thematic level, with ubiquitous bars of lights and shadows, stairways and columns, visually imprisoning Christina, the wife, to reflect how her marriage traps her. The dialogue and acting are expressive, yet subtle. They are meaningful, layered, and nuanced, yet never unnatural. The story is a treasure to unravel; it is clever and funny in more ways than one. You can watch this movie once and think it is amazing, but you can also watch it again and get a completely different picture (still thinking it's amazing).

The story, written by Boileau and Narcejac, felt more contained and thought-out than Vertigo, which they also wrote. That being said, the story gets a bit excessive and ludicrous in the planning of dirty deeds. And there is a force of good and order at the end--perhaps the creators were too unsure of themselves to let the bad guys win, much like Kurosawa in Rashomon? Either way, this movie is required viewing for lovers of Hitchcock. It rivals some of his best and surpasses most of the rest; and it also works really well as a partner piece for Vertigo. And as the original poster tagline says, see it and be amazed by it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0046911/

Shoot the Piano Player (1960)

4/5

Shoot the Piano Player manages to mold two separate moods into one. It is French New Wave mixed with film noir. It can be powerfully dramatic and poignant (the extended flashback to Charlie's earlier life as a concert pianist) or deliriously witty and fun (the car ride with Charlie, Lena, and the two bad guys). And it switches effortlessly between the two extremes. I love the scene where Charlie is walking Lena home and is contemplating how he should ask her out for a drink. He is so caught up in his thoughts that when he finds the right way of asking, she's already left without him even realizing it. It's this sense of humor when it comes to film styles (specifically film noir's voice-over narration) that makes this movie stand out. Truffaut understands film intimately and loves it enough to playfully twist it around for his own purposes.

However, there are some flaws. Being French New Wave, the technical skills are extremely lacking. The sound is poor and the camerawork is amateurish. There is no lighting; some shots are almost pure black, despite there being two people in the frame. Not that I expected any of these to be positive aspects of the movie. The reason I am not giving this a higher rating is that I walked away afterwards and just said, basically, now what? What did I get out of it? It was a difficult question to answer. It is fun though, and very much recommended.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0054389/

Fracture (2007)

3/5

Fracture is a movie I thought was a waste of time for many reasons. There are a lot, and I mean a lot, of characters and subplots that I thought were 100% worthless. The main twist at the end hinges on something that was extremely obvious to me the entire movie (although apparently not to everyone). The plot was ludicrous and outrageous. It's less than two hours long and it felt like it was over three hours. It was quite the ordeal.

Yet I enjoyed my time spent watching the movie, for the most part. The acting by Hopkins and Gosling was phenomenal. It didn't take itself seriously and there were tons of jabs at itself that made for exceedingly funny moments. I laughed a lot in this movie. And while I did see the main plot twist, I didn't see the full extent of the twist and was still surprised and impressed at its ending. Overall, not recommended if you're not interested; but if you are, I see no reason not to check it out, but maybe on video.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0488120/

Les Glaneurs et la glaneuse (2000)

3/5

Agnès Varda, the biggest female director of the French New Wave, continues to make movies that still have the feel of French New Wave in them. It was clearly low-budget and exceedingly self-referential, and lacked a traditional story arc. The movie is a free-form documentary about gleaners. Yes, the topic is a bit unconventional and is perhaps one of the film's biggest detractors. After all, what do I care about gleaners? But it has some extremely insightful relationships to lots of different things. The movie has no central objective or goal; it is exploratory in nature. That makes it extremely interesting and surprising, but also hinders it. I felt there was a lot of repetition, and despite its 80-minute running time, the movie feels like it takes forever because of the lack of organization. However, there are some very nice compositions and provocative ideas sprinkled randomly throughout the movie. Bottom line: interesting, but why am I watching this? For an excellent free-form documentary that is much more inventive, creative, and fun, I wholeheartedly recommend Orson Welles's F for Fake.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0247380/