The Killing of a Chinese Bookie (1976)

2/5

Cassavetes's The Killling of a Chinese Bookie is far too long for the scintillas of content it contains. The meager plot simply cannot support its 2 hour 15 minute runtime. Ben Gazzara stars as a strip club owner who racks up an immense gambling debt one night and must perform the titular act to pay it back and save his club. It could have lasted less than 20 minutes, but instead they randomly added stuff (perhaps to generate "atmosphere" or "mood" or some other such crap) that I couldn't possibly care less about. For example, Cassavetes wastes 20 uninterrupted minutes showing a strip show--multiple times!--randomly, and without purpose, explanation, or relevance.

While I liked the visuals themselves, the cinematography as a whole was not too appealing. Far too frequently, the shot went out of focus and stayed on something we didn't care about instead of showing us what we did want to see. This is partly due to patient, lingering editing--editing far too loose for the boring subject matter. Also, the audio levels were inconsistent (it was often too quiet or too loud). On the bright side, I loved the music and acting. The music perfectly set the mood and the Gazzara's acting exploded off the screen. There was also a terrifically tense (if a bit extended and misplaced) climax. And the opening credits were pretty cool. But other than that, I can't figure out much reason to watch this movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074749/

A Woman Under the Influence (1974)

2/5

John Cassavetes's A Woman Under the Influence is a slice of life tale examining the titular woman and her dysfunctional family life for two and a half hours. There was little plot to speak of, and not that much stuff actually happening. It was just a crazy woman losing her mind without explanation. While it was always interesting to watch, I continually wondered just what exactly I was watching and why. The only reason I started watching it was because Cassavetes is supposed to be the godfather of American independent cinema. I thought that that meant he made his films in a truly independent manner, but as far as I can tell it's because he started the concept of the bizarre, awkward, uncomfortable stories that are "unique" and that I don't care about at all.

This obligatory dysfunctional family is unparalleled--these people are more confusing, more inexplicable, and less realistic than Lars in Lars and the Real Girl. And angrier. There is so much yelling and arguing, it hurt my ears. At the same time, the husband-wife relationship and their inherent difficulties ring true, with genuine family dynamics on display. But do we really need a movie to show us this? The excellent acting by both Peter Falk and Gena Rowlands was a bit exaggerated at times. Add that to over-the-top characters, and the whole thing feels staged and melodramatic. Technically, the movie is a bit more impressive. It looked and sounded really really good. The problem is that, like all indies, this movie had atrociously slow editing--it would meander and linger on unnecessary shots/scenes in the hopes that the audience could find some underlying meaning.

All in all, you can hope to get some meaningful content out of it, but is it really worth all the time and patience you have to put in? Maybe for you, but not for me. (And yet, still I am going to be watching Cassavetes's next movie, The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, so expect another pleasantly negative review soon.)

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072417/

Vantage Point (2008)

4/5

Vantage Point is a movie Sameer and I light-heartedly made fun of for its over-the-top action and cliched dialogue while simultaneously watching the trailer again and again in anticipation of its release. We decided not to see it in theaters due a slew of bad reviews, but I am happy to announce that all those reviews were wrong! This movie met and exceeded all my expectations. The plot follows an attempted assassination on the President while at a counter-terrorism summit that continually gets more and more unnecessarily convoluted and never actually reveals the terrorists' true motivations. And yet, by the end of the movie, you don't care at all. Because it set up a series of small mysteries and revealed them incrementally such that you finish the film feeling satisfied. It is remarkably successful at getting you to suspend your disbelief from beginning to end.

Dennis Quaid was an actor whom I (and Hollywood) had forgotten about. But he gives a strong, convincing performance that anchors this entire movie. The cinematography was alright, but the real visual star was the locale. The shots were beautiful, although the rapid-fire editing made it somewhat difficult to see at times. The dialogue was not as awful as the trailer made it seem--they picked the worst sentences for the trailer, which magnified their stupidity. The action, however, was incredible. I'm generally not a fan of car chases, but this one had me sitting on the edge of my seat. It is absolutely amazing. This entire movie emanates a feeling of cool. Think Lost meets 24. And watch it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443274/

Lars and the Real Girl (2007)

3/5

Lars and the Real Girl is a pretty typical indie drama romance comedy smorgasbord of heartache, love, and laughs. It follows an underdeveloped man-child weirdo lead (Ryan Gosling) and his sex doll Bianca, which is his outlet and the movie's "unique" quality that indie fanboys (and fangirls) will surely love. The real love interest is an equally weird uggo who is too perky and aggressive in the dating arena for how little success she must have had given her uggo-ness. But like a lot of indie films, this one has a heartwarming story, laugh-out-loud moments, and melodramatic tearjerker scenes. If you can stand the contemporary awkward American "independent" cinema, then you'll probably like this movie.

Now, to rant: I don't know who the character is supposed to be. It's a fantastic situation that has zero conceivable relevance to most viewers' everyday lives. He shifted from absurdly bizarre in the beginning to perfectly normal in the end. Everything was tied up way too neatly for me. And it seemed like the entire forward momentum of the story was based around the protagonist, a character whose motivations and mindset I didn't understand at all. Any change in the story was a direct result of a change in Gosling's character--the supporting cast was powerless to influence the plot progression. The only reason it kept going was because it was a 2 hour movie, not because it necessarily would have. Still, all my nitpicky complaints didn't hurt my enjoyment of the movie. So if this seems interesting to you, check it out. You indie fanboy. (Or fangirl).

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805564/

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

4/5

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is an enjoyable and entertaining thrill ride. It's a worthy successor to a historic lineage of awesome adventure movies. The plot weaves and wanders amidst side stories, double crosses, and misdirections, but at its core it tells the story of an aged Indy fighting Commies to restore a Peruvian artifact (the titular crystal skull) to its rightful place within the mythical city of El Dorado. Spielberg references and reunites old friends, which goes much appreciated by me. He is very much aware of the movie's roots, and this latest Indiana Jones sits firmly within its elders both in style and mood. Though some have complained of the "preposterous and outrageous" ending, of what we are expected to believe as audience-members, I believe it is no more preposterous or outrageous than the first three.

Perhaps my favorite part about this movie was the cinematography. The shot compositions and camera movements were unbelievable. Spielberg truly understands the medium of film and uses all his tricks here. I thought the editing and CGI could have used a little more work, but most of this is hard to notice because you're so entranced by the adventure. Which is simply astounding and breathtaking. The characters were believable and the acting made them come alive (although Cate Blanchett's character was a bit of a stretch). The music was fantastic: a perfect blend of nostalgia and reinvention. However, since it is a relatively simple adventure movie, there's not much to take home. Still, it's a must-see and one of the best movies of the year so far. Watch it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367882/

Billy Liar (1963)

4/5

John Schlesinger's Billy Liar is about a young man in a provincial English town who lets his imagination run wild and make irrational decisions for him. His life is a mess--he's simultaneously engaged to two women and he owes his bosses money--but he daydreams bliss for himself as the leader of the fictitious Ambrosia.

There are so many technical problems in this film (cinematography, audio, editing, etc.) it's almost embarrassing. And it was difficult to get through the first half, with its atrocious pacing, sloppy character introductions, and everyone talking over each other in thick British accents. It was hard to tell what exactly was going on.

But be patient with the movie. By the end I was flabbergasted. I was absolutely in love with the characters, in all their faults. You want to hate this habitual liar with his bouts of anger, but you can't. At the end, you just feel complete and utter compassion for him and his situation. There was a tenderness and sympathy evoked in me that I couldn't get around. This is a tremendous film, and it can move you if you let it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056868/

El Dorado (1966)

4/5

Howard Hawks's El Dorado is a loose remake of his earlier, better Rio Bravo (read my review here). The story isn't as interesting, the characters aren't as rich, and the comedy is nearly absent. Much is the same, but a little bit cheesier. Both films have lackluster cinematography. The pacing is fluid and the story is solid, even if they lack innovation and novelty. What El Dorado does have over Rio Bravo is better actors and more exciting action. All in all, it's an entertaining story told effectively. If you're looking for a fun western, check this out. If you're looking for a great western, check out Rio Bravo.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061619/

The Fall (2006)

4/5

Tarsem's The Fall is a jaw-dropping visual feast. The colors and compositions, the costumes and locales--all work together to compose an unforgettable tapestry of images. The aesthetics in and of themselves are enough to spellbind any viewer, but the music integrates perfectly with the eye candy to create an even more breathtaking experience. The plot, however, could use some work.

It follows a depressed stuntman in a Los Angeles hospital with a young Romanian girl who broke her arm. In order to get morphine and commit suicide, he manipulates her by telling an epic story of five warriors attempting to kill the evil General Odious. The story he tells, and the movie's story overall, is exciting in the beginning, then seems to flounder and sag before eventually ending as conventionally as possible. Throughout the course of the movie, you realize that not much really happened and his story wasn't very good. (I did, however, appreciate the seemingly tacked-on ending and what it said about movies specifically and storytelling in general.)

Catinca Untaru plays the 5 year old with remarkable natural talent. You forget that she is acting at all, and that there are other people in the story. She steals every scene in the movie. The acting by the minor characters was somewhat flat, although that may simply be underdeveloped characters. And I thought the editing could use a lot of work; the movie needed to be half an hour shorter. Overall though, the visuals are enough for me to recommend this film to true fans of the cinema.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460791/

Into the Wild (2007)

3/5

Sean Penn's Into the Wild is a touching story poorly told. Penn recounts, with a reckless abandonment of cinematic intelligence, young Chris McCandless's own reckless attempt to abandon society and live on his wits in the wild. The emotions he feels, the adventures he experiences, the people he encounters--all are striking and make this film as moving as it is. The rest is overlong dreck. The whole thing feels like one long montage, with little backbone to ground and support the story. While the cinematography was breathtaking, the editing was so rapid and hectic that it was hard to fully comprehend what was going on. Scenes extend for far too long or have no point. The music, excellent in its own right, often ruins the mood by coming in and out at times it shouldn't have. It always, and I mean always, seems out of place. Oh, and the acting was really good for the most part.

There is an extraordinary amount of inane voice-over narration that tries to make some sense out of the mess that is this movie, but it fails at that and simply pains the ears. Penn clearly does not know how to adapt, because its literary roots show in the frequent uncinematic moments that might work in a book but clearly fail in this movie. Still, it was enjoyable every now and again, and had the potential to really move an involved viewer, but it should have been 90 minutes instead of 150 and written (and directed) by someone who knows how to. Watch it if you're already interested, but I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend it to someone.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758758/

Scarface (1932)

2/5

I was never too big a fan of De Palma's modernization/remake of Scarface, but it was definitely better than the original one. Hawks's original is shorter than De Palma's, but also less exciting and less interesting. It was made for the sole purpose of serving as an anti-gangster message, and the propaganda shows. The characters all feel cheap, flat, and laughable; there is no complexity because the creators didn't want any. Unrelated scenes are included to enforce their ideology. Everything feels staged, written, planned; none of it is real. The only redeeming qualities in this movie are the (very) primitive antecedents of (far) superior movies.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023427/