Rio Bravo (1959)

4.9/5

Howard Hawks's Rio Bravo is by far his finest film. After a nail-biting, dialogue-free introduction, it instantly sets up a tense waiting game in the vein of High Noon that keeps you glued to the screen until the magnificent, explosive finale. This western is the perfect blend of drama, comedy, and romance. It's the movie version of Firefly, with a lot less space and a little more noir. The plot follows a recently-jailed hoodlum/murderer whose brother attempts to free him. The lawmen trying to make sure justice is served include the Sheriff John T. Chance (John Wayne), the reformed drunkard Dude (Dean Martin), the young gunslinger Colorado Ryan (Ricky Nelson), and the aged cripple Stumpy (Walter Brennan). While the main character is Chance, the most thematically interesting one is Dude, who must come to terms with his addiction and his worth as a human being.

The dialogue is at once humorous and charged. The acting works surprisingly well with the unique characters and involving story. The music starts off overbearing and overly melodramatic but quickly turns into a stellar companion of mood and atmosphere. I was underwhelmed by the somewhat plain and uninteresting cinematography, but that is to be expected in a Hawks film. The editing--specifically the pacing and plot progression--is superb. The technical aspects all work to make the already wonderful movie that much more appealing. Rio Bravo is an utter joy to watch.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053221/

Delicatessen (1991)

4.9/5

Delicatessen, a film by Jeunet and Caro, is a wildly inventive and darkly comic foray into another world. The plot centers on a cannibalistic butcher landlord in a futuristic, depression-beset France. An ex-clown comes to the place looking for work and falls in love with the landlord's daughter. With seemingly effortless pacing and characterization, we come to know the bizarre tenants--their tics and habits, their wants and fears--just as much as we do the protagonists. This is a fully-realized apartment with fully-fleshed out inhabitants. Much like Tim Burton, Jeunet and Caro are able to create a wholly believable horror fantasy realm that is clever, fascinating, and endlessly addicting. It was an absolute joy to watch; my mouth was open in awe the entire time. The visual style was appealing, the editing lean and rapid, and the music evocative and integral. The acting was spot-on and the minimal dialogue served its purpose without bogging down the movie.

There were very few negatives. The biggest downside to the movie is trying to find a message in it. It's not really the kind of movie to carry a message though, so I don't really hold that against it. (It's just disappointing in light of Jeunet's later Amelie and A Very Long Engagement.) The drab yellow hue kind of got to you after a while, but that was kind of the point. And it made the ending that much more magical. Watch this movie; it is a treasure to behold.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101700/

Red River (1948)

3/5

I can't imagine who would want to make this movie or who would want to watch it. Howard Hawks's Red River is a 2+ hour Western about a cattle herder herding cattle. I can't really make it much more exciting than that, and neither can Hawks. The cinematography and editing are both uninteresting. The visuals don't sync up with audio in wide shots, where Hawks perhaps assumed we wouldn't be able to tell. There is a 30 second montage of men yelling out "Yee haw!" The acting is often theatrical and melodramatic. The story took over an hour to grab your attention, but once it did, it held onto you for the remainder of the film.

John Wayne's Thomas Dunson provides a fascinating base for a character study. It allowed the film to explore some interesting themes through Dunson's words, actions, and emotions. We see how he deals with aging, declining mental faculties, making mistakes, being hard-hearted, and being betrayed. Still, it would take a lot more than that for me to recommend this movie to anyone but the most die hard of Hawks fans or Western fans.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040724/

Full Metal Jacket (1987)

5/5

Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket is a flawless evocation of war's penalties, of its atrocities and its victims. The film is split in two parts, the first describing recruit training on Parris Island and the second reporting battles in war-torn Vietnam. Neither is forgiving, and the first is as brutal as the second.

The film starts with a ferocious intensity; the first forty-five minutes set up a suspenseful introduction that never lets you breathe until it's over. It composes a darkly comic atmosphere that is simultaneously unsettling and disturbing. You might find yourself laughing, but then quickly stop yourself as the horror mounts. The second half is almost as funny and just as frightening. It is the visceral counterpart to the cerebral first. Kubrick uses this symmetry, and echoes it in his shot compositions, to reveal multiple layers of meaning. A thematic analysis seems to be first and foremost in this film's creation. (For further analysis, I have linked a five page paper I wrote on it for class here.)

While Kubrick makes few, if any, cinematic mistakes, I am a bit baffled by some of his choices for dialogue and acting. The macho battle between Joker and Animal Mother when they first meet seems awfully staged and preposterously over-the-top. He clearly intended something by it (it would be impossible for him not to notice), but I just can't figure out what. Additionally, a few shots in the barracks/training scenes didn't quite match up. These complaints detract very little from the experience. After 20 years, it still holds up remarkably well and its easy to see its influence on future war movies. This is one film you don't want to miss.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093058/

The Wicker Man (1973)

4/5

Robin Hardy's The Wicker Man is an exceedingly well-made and suspenseful thriller. The plot follows Sergeant Howie as he investigates the disappearance of a young girl on a small, private island. Impeccably paced, the movie gradually builds from an unsettling, eerie introduction to outright terror in its stunning, surprising finale. It sucks you in from the beginning and never lets you go.

Technically, the movie worked, although it did not excel. The cinematography and editing were competent, although at times you could find band-aid cuts. The acting was a bit over-the-top, but on the whole quite believable. I thought the music was excessive at first, but after a while I understood how integral and necessary it was. The technical qualities of this movie aren't what impressed me; it was the mood and progression of the story. This is a quality film you don't want to pass up.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070917/

Iron Man (2008)

4/5

Iron Man is a well-crafted and enjoyable superhero movie with very few flaws. It follows Tony Stark, wealthy war profiteer and weapons manufacturer, who undergoes a change of heart after being captured in Afghanistan while demonstrating his new defense system. The plot progression is impeccable. I went into the theater with very little sleep and was certain I would doze off during the movie, but I didn't! I was captivated by every word and action. The dialogue is peppered throughout with comedic moments and wonderful asides. Sometimes, it did seem random and worthless, or it had really bad (not bad-ass) one-liners, but these moments were few and far between. The action, on the other hand, built and climaxed in just the right moments for the entire length of the movie. The acting by all parties was spectacular. Robert Downey Jr. gives Tony Stark an inimitable and likable persona. I loved this movie, but the reason I didn't give it a higher rating is because there was nothing more to it than $10 well-spent. It was a simple superhero tale, without complex characters and provocative backgrounds a la Hulk. Oh well, can't win 'em all.

What I liked most about Iron Man was how it broke all the rules of a superhero movie. He didn't become who he was through wealth (Batman) or misfortune (X-Men, Spiderman), but through intelligence and determination. Not only that, but he announces his identity, instead of hiding from it. Granted, these are just cool little nuggets and won't make or break the movie for anyone, but the action and comedy in this movie are more than enough reason for you to go out and see it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371746/

Last Year at Marienbad (1961)

3/5

I loved Alain Resnais's Night and Fog, so I was hoping for a lot coming into Last Year at Marienbad. I was terribly disappointed. I confess the majority of my disappointment was due to a difference in expectations. I assumed that the movie would tell a rather untraditional story in a traditional way and I would come out the theater having experienced extraordinary beauty and insight. Not so. The story followed a man trying to convince a woman that they met and had an affair a year before, perhaps at Marienbad. But the way the story was told was far from conventional. Through repetition, Resnais shows how easily memory can be distorted. His control over lighting and mood is spectacular. The cinematography and camera movements are reserved yet purposeful, creating a breathtaking and arresting visual style. There was one absolutely incredible part that I loved about an hour in (which I won't reveal) that dealt with repressed memories in the narrator as well as the listener. But the movie folds back in on itself, denying that idea almost as quickly as it introduces it. A hysterical, over-the-top organ dirge relentlessly backgrounds the piece, serving as a stark contrast to the slow, soothing, soporific visuals. I can't hate on it too much though, as its aggressively violent wails and screeches regularly woke me up after I had dozed off.

Much of the movie is simply too confusing and abstract to understand. Yes, it is technically competent and seductive, but so are perfume commercials. A good movie requires more; it requires a dialogue between the film and the audience. Unfortunately, I found very little that this movie could contribute. Yes, it is easy to dismiss something you don't understand, but it is equally easy and just as misguided to accept something obtuse and incomprehensible because you will appear smart and trendy. Most people who tout it are pretentious film snobs separated from reality. Only a few actually come away from the film with something meaningful. I am not one of them ... yet. I think with more viewings, I could appreciate what the film has to offer. And I really would like to see the movie a few more times, but as of an initial viewing, I cannot justifiably rate it higher than a 3.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054632/

Interview with the Vampire (1994)

2/5

I was pretty disappointed by Neil Jordan's Interview with the Vampire. It might be that I just don't like vampire movies, but I think the bigger reason is that I just don't like bad movies. Apparently the movie's sympathetic vision of vampires was revolutionary ... or something. It didn't seem that novel or interesting to me. It follows the story of Louis (Brad Pitt) over the past 200+ years after being turned by Lestat (Tom Cruise). Kirsten Dunst plays an angsty and needy teenage vampire and Antonio Banderas plays a suave yet flamboyant vampire. All of them are orgiastically homoerotic towards each other.

I'm sure there's a lot about vampire culture I don't understand, but the stuff I did understand wasn't very good. The story plodded along, the wooden dialogue stumbled forward, the actors didn't complement each other. The camera focused on meaningless gestures, the editing lacked purpose, and the movie felt like it took three hours. I had to stand up and walk around to stay awake, which annoyed every one else I saw it with. But as soon as I stopped walking around and sat down, I fell right back asleep. The positives: some interesting ideas and cool special effects. I'm sorry to say it, but don't bother with this movie unless your a vampirophile.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110148/

28 Days Later (2002)

3/5

Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later effectively merges the zombie horror movie with the post-apocalyptic survival movie. There are scenes that make you jump and feel sick. But there are also scenes that make you think and allow for thoughtful discussion afterwards. While I think there are movies that tackle both issues better and with more sophistication, this is still a successful endeavor. And it is refreshing to see director Danny Boyle consistently changing the types of projects he takes on with ease, from Trainspotting and Millions to Sunshine and 28 Days Later.

Technically, the movie is a bit mixed. While the cinematography is striking (nearly every shot is set up to be visually appealing), there are little to no establishing shots. For me, it hurt the movie--it couldn't sustain tension as I never knew how close the zombies were. This is also tied in with the editing, which was too rapid-fire for me to tell what was going on. It worked much better in this movie, though, than more traditional action movies like Batman Begins. Despite these problems, the movie used a novel, extremely effective visual style, mixing digital video with Super 8 and 35mm film. Several parts were shot at really high shutter speed, which turned normally blurry movement into crisp but choppy movement. It gives the zombies a disturbing and disorienting quality. And it makes rain look amazing. In my opinion, this style was the most successful and memorable part of the movie.

My biggest complaint is that that movie introduces a cagey scientific explanation for the zombie epidemic: a virus. The problem is that it hints at reality and plausibility, but doesn't come close to satisfying the intellectual curiosity it invited. I don't buy a virus taking over a human in 20 seconds, or jumping species without any mutation time, or degrading mental capacities to inhuman instincts. I am fine with a zombie movie that leaves the mystery of the "zombie" alone, but if it provides an explanation, it better be able to stand up to reasonable scrutiny. Otherwise it just seems incomplete, like a good idea that they didn't bother thinking all the way through. Still, the movie is pretty awesome for a variety of reasons, so I wouldn't dismiss it or tell you not to watch it. It's not hard to recommend, as long as you know what you're getting into.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/

21 (2008)

2/5

21 is a laughably bad movie; it is a fake version of a true story wherein six MIT students counted cards to win big from blackjack tables in Vegas. Except of course for the second and third acts, where things go wrong and become right again thanks to our hero. The story lacked creativity and insight. The writing was atrocious, the characters one-dimensional, the acting flat. Even Spacey was disappointing; while he wasn't bad, he just didn't have any opportunity to be good with the script. The music was always out of place. The scenario was exceptionally unrealistic: who believes that the only way to go to med school is with tuition for four years pre-paid? "Don't have $300k in your pocket? Can't go to med school!" And how can the idiot who believes this have gotten a 44 MCAT?

At the same time, there were a number of parts I enjoyed. Some of the action and exciting moments were gripping. There is one devastating moment in the film, where everything comes crashing down, and I really felt what the character felt. Several of Spacey's lines are brilliantly delivered, especially his vicious insults. The Asian dude is hilarious. It's fun to laugh at, but even then it's not worth it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478087/