August 22, 2009

District 9 (2009)

5/5

Neill Blomkamp's District 9 is a rare treasure of cinema. Much like my favorite film of 2006, Children of Men, the director envisions an alternate yet wholly believable future, and then uses his camera to immerse us in the gritty, raw realism of his dystopia. The story is set in Johannesburg, where an alien spacecraft stops and hovers over the city. The military drills into the ship to reveal a population of malnourished prawn-like aliens. Humanitarian organizations demand they be taken care of, and a district is set aside for them to co-exist with humans. Crime and violence precipitates between humans and aliens for over 20 years until it is decided that the aliens should be relocated to a new area. It is here that the movie begins, after setting in place all the essential details that will be brought back, full circle, to the thrilling climax and poignant denouement.

Wikus van de Merwe is the bureaucratic agent responsible for evicting the prawns. One such prawn, Christopher Johnson, and his son are the other main characters of the story. All three are painted with such clarity and precision, and acted with such honesty, that they must be real. Shot with a vivid cinéma vérité style, you truly feel and live in their world. The editing and overall pacing are both brilliant, effortlessly mixing together CGI animation, documentary-like footage, and intense action sequences. The film does a remarkable thing, and it does so with absolute perfection. As I said in the beginning of my review, this film is a rare treasure of cinema and one I will not forget for a very long time. Go and see this movie. Go and see this movie now.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1136608/

August 21, 2009

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

4/5

Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds is a stunning film, but it is by no means Tarantino's best. The story follows several tracks that all converge on one night for the premiere of a German propaganda film called Nation's Pride (fake trailer here). The first track is that of a group of merciless Jewish Nazi-killers known as The Basterds, led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Pitt). The second and third tracks concern a young Jewish girl named Shosanna (Laurent), who just barely escapes with her life after SS Col. Hans Landa (Waltz) kills her entire family. There are a few more tracks involving actors and actresses and translators and Hitler as the movie closes in on its explosive finale, but I'll leave that to you to experience when you watch it.

One thing that really irked me was that the intro credits, the musical style, and even the chapter narrative structure are all straight-up stolen from, or at least strongly reminiscent of, Tarantino's last stand-alone project, Kill Bill. The problem is that those aspects weren't even the best part about Kill Bill, which leads me to believe he's running out of creativity. For example, the Samuel L. Jackson narration, which probably seems cool on paper, ultimately feels empty on screen (mostly because he has nothing important to say). Also, while better than most movies, the dialogue in Inglourious Basterds isn't as luscious as I know he's capable of, and I feel the replay value will probably suffer as a result. Despite these disappointments, Tarantino is effective at building tension from simple situations and maintaining it over a 2.5 hour movie through stellar cinematography, lighting, and editing, which are all up to his usual exquisite form. I definitely recommend this movie to Tarantino fans, just understand that there's nothing revolutionary about it. In fact, it sits rather low on my ranking of Tarantino films. But it's still a quality film that's worth watching.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361748/

Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li (2009)

2/5

Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li is a surprising movie for a number of reasons. It's not surprising because it was bad--I expected that. It's surprising because it was much better than I thought it would be in a lot of its aspects. The cinematography, costumes, and action all impressed me more often than not. Yes, I will admit that some of the action was bad, and in fact I've seen much better action before, but it was far from the worst I've seen. The must frustrating part about this movie is that it adds random characters to the Street Fighter universe and completely ignores some of the more famous and memorable ones. Oh, I almost forgot about the plot. But that's okay. There's no need to really tell you what the plot is about because, unlike on AMC, the story doesn't matter here. And of course there's bad acting, bad writing, simplistic back stories, and superfluous side plots, but they're to be expected. As long as you go into this movie knowing just how bad it's going to be and in what ways, then by all means enjoy it at your own risk.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0891592/

August 20, 2009

Big Touble in Little China (1986)

2/5

John Carpenter's Big Trouble in Little China is a popcorn flick with non-stop action and cheesy acting. The plot follows truck driver Jack Burton (Russell) and Chinese gambler Wang (Dun). Burton falls in love with lawyer Gracie Law (Cattrall) and Wang is set to marry Miao Yin (Pai). When Miao Yin gets kidnapped by a gang and brought to Lo Pan (Hong), an ancient spirit who wants to marry her in order to become flesh and blood again, the other three set off to rescue her.

The story is unnecessarily convoluted and bites off more than it can chew. With every explanation of some supernatural event comes more questions and loose ends. In fact, it's not even worth listening to their explanations, because it doesn't affect the movie in any way, shape, or form. The problem is that it spends over 30 minutes trying and trying and trying to explain everything, which ends up being 30 minutes of wasted time. Even if they weren't wasted on dialogue, however, those 30 minutes would be wasted on the same ludicrous action, horrendous special effects, and hollow acting that fill up the other 60 minutes. The way Kurt Russell speaks reminds me of Private Joker's fake John Wayne parody in Full Metal Jacket. Pretty much nothing about this movie is good. But at least it's fast-paced crap. It isn't mind-numbingly boring or too terribly offensive to my senses. Still, avoid it if you can.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090728/

Ponyo (2008)

4/5

Hayao Miyazaki's Ponyo is a wonderfully inventive, creative foray into another universe. The story follows a young boy named Sosuke (Jonas) and a magical goldfish creature (Cyrus) that he saves and names Ponyo. Sosuke lives with his mother (Fey) in a seaside village, alone on a cliff, while his father (Damon) is out at sea. Ponyo's father (Neeson) wants to get his daughter back because the future of the world depends on it. And so begins their magical story together.

The best part about Miyazaki's directing is by far the fantastic world he creates, the characters that inhabit it, and the rules they live by. It is fully-realized and awe-inspiring, and it is something I have never seen before. Much like Tim Burton's works, the movie has the potential to frighten and terrify, but instead benevolently lets us enjoy the triumphs over the catastrophes. However, the directing and the movie as a whole suffer from a few problems as well. There is no real conflict to consider except perhaps that nobody really knows what's going on, so they might "make a mistake" and cause the world to be destroyed. In fact, the audience doesn't know what's going on at all either because the background story isn't fleshed-out enough for anybody's to comprehend it. Side stories seem to be picked up and ignored almost haphazardly. And Fey's voice acting was sometimes good, sometimes downright bad--I'm sorry to report--but mostly just distracting. Overall, however, these flaws aren't that bad. If you're a Miyazaki fan, this will definitely not disappoint.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0876563/

August 13, 2009

Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959)

4/5

Alain Resnais's Hiroshima Mon Amour is a powerful, quasi-experimental meditation on eternal love, the memory of love, and the gradual disintegration of memory. The plot follows a torrid affair between two separately married people, a Japanese architect and a French actress, over a few days in Hiroshima. She reveals to him her past in Nevers, where she fell in love with a German soldier who was killed, and her fear that she would eventually forget the true depths of the love they shared. As most of the movie is spent dealing with the ephemeral nature of memory, often through repetition of words and scenes that are almost hypnotizing, one can see its similarities to his later film Last Year at Marienbad. However, Last Year at Marienbad was far more experimental with filmmaking techniques and simply did not have the same grounding in reality that this one did. In Hiroshima Mon Amour, we get at least a sense of what really happened and can appreciate how our memory may warp that past event.

Much like Night and Fog, his earlier documentary on the Holocaust, Resnais shows us some unforgettable images of the nuclear aftermath. For the first thirty minutes of the film, we are entranced, engrossed, and disgusted by the still photos, archival footage, and simple verbal depictions of the horrors of that event. To describe the bombing of Hiroshima by saying that the entire city was lifted off the ground and drifted back down to earth as ashes is such absolutely perfect writing. And yet that beautiful, haunting line is just one of many lines that are equally insightful and piercing. With regards to cinematography and editing, the film is both proficient and experimental. When the experiment works, it works exquisitely well. And when it fails, it fails miserably. For me, most of it worked, but I can see it turning a lot of people off from the movie. If you're not in the mood to experience all the piece has to offer, the film can appear slow and plodding. It can be frustrating at times, thinking of the movie in a traditional narrative structure and trying to figure out what "actually" happened. But if you let go of that need, step outside of your comfort zone, you may find this movie to be a spectacular gem. I highly recommend you give it a shot.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052893/

Funny People (2009)

3/5

Despite the rating of 3 stars, Judd Apatow's Funny People is not a mediocre movie. It's actually a great movie that suffers from some serious flaws. The plot follows star comedian George Simmons (Sandler) after he is diagnosed with AML. While depressed, he hires young stand-up comic Ira Wright (Rogen) to be his assistant and help write jokes for him. He finally starts accepting his impending death and, because of it, begins rekindling old relationships, including the love of his life, Laura (Mann). He miraculously recovers and, with his new lease on life, decides to pursue Laura and what he hopes is the key to his happiness.

Some of the scenes in this movie are incredibly powerful and moving (for example, when he first finds out about the disease, or when he fears that the drugs are making him sicker, or when he starts opening up to people, or the complicated mess they get into at the end). Some of the scenes, mostly the stand-up routines, are ridiculously hilarious. And I especially loved all the scenes where real-life comedians (Norm MacDonald, Dave Attell, Sarah Silverman, Ray Romano) play themselves. But some scenes just muddle the message and some scenes that need to be there just aren't. It's frustrating in a movie that seems so close to greatness fall so short. And it's unsatisfying. Even after 2 hours and 15 minutes, when I realized the credits were about to roll on the final shot, I thought to myself, "That's it? There's nothing more he has to say?"

The humor is actually fairly dissonant; you get the Adam Sandler humor of old mixed with the Seth Rogen/Judd Apatow humor of new and they just don't go together. I often had to force myself to laugh at most of Sandler's comedic lines. I never really found him that funny to start with, and this movie didn't change my opinion. On the bright side, the acting was effective and empathetic, from all parties, and most directorial decisions were spot-on. The cinematography was surprisingly effective at setting mood and evoking emotion with simple point-of-view shots. The editing was good for the most part, although it lagged in some parts as well. All in all, the movie was technically proficient with some very emotional scenes that ultimately leave you unfulfilled and aggravated. If you like Judd Apatow movies, you'll probably like this one, but it's definitely not as good as his other two.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1201167/

August 10, 2009

Amarcord (1973)

4/5

Federico Fellini's Amarcord is a vivacious tale of a year in the life of a young man on the cusp of manhood. It is also about Borgo, the seaside town he resides in (based on the real-life Rimini where Fellini grew up), and all of its bizarre, quirky inhabitants. But there is not much of a traditional narrative structure. Amarcord is more a series of vibrant images, the kind that resides in your childhood memory, with little to link them together. This seems to be what Fellini specializes in: aesthetically unique visuals strung together more by proximity rather than plot. Even without something to glue the vignettes together, there is still a surprising thematic unity. The overarching seasonal changes also help to tie the stories together and brings the finale back to the start.

Technically, Fellini is as good as he ever was. The cinematography is beautiful, the editing is tight, and the acting is spot-on. And it is a pleasure to watch, with some surprising scenes (the tobacconist) and some poignant ones (the eccentric uncle). The movie reminded me a lot of Cinema Paradiso, one of my all-time favorite films, but simply doesn't reach the same power or meaning for me. I know they were made with different intents and it is perhaps unreasonable to compare the two, but Cinema Paradiso is definitely more my kind of movie. Still, Amarcord is an impressive film for many reasons and definitely goes highly recommended by me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071129/

August 09, 2009

Kagemusha (1980)

4/5

Akira Kurosawa's Kagemusha, which translates to Shadow Warrior, is a historical epic during the 1500's that focuses on Lord Shingen (Nakadai) as he combats Lords Ieyasu (Yui) and Nobunaga (Ryu) to unite and rule Japan. Shingen's brother Nobukado (Yamazaki) rescues a thief from crucifixion due to his resemblance to Shingen and his potential to be used as a kagemusha, or double. During a battle, Shingen is shot and killed; his dying wish is for his death to be kept a secret for three years. And so the thief begins to impersonate Lord Shingen, but deceiving his grandson, mistresses, and untameable horse is not a simple task.

The movie is technically impressive. The seven-minute single-take intro shot transfixes you. The use of colors is brilliant, beautiful, and awe-inspiring. There is one shot in the movie that rivals the best single shot I have ever seen in any movie--and it's immediately followed by another ridiculous shot. The acting and dialogue are all phenomenal as well. However, the editing drags a bit. The film should have been at least 15-30 minutes shorter. There is almost 10 minutes of pointless repetition in the penultimate scene of the movie. And there is not much closure at the end. This may be because the film is a historical epic (and a rather accurate one, from what I can gather) and not a samurai movie, as I had first thought. It's important to realize that, because there are very different expectations in characterization, atmosphere, and plot progression between the two. Be sure you know what you're getting into when you start this movie, or you may be disappointed. Still, I highly recommend you see it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080979/

August 07, 2009

Vertigo (1958)

5/5

Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo is a tantalizing masterpiece. The answers to its mysteries ebb and flow beyond your grasp, always so close but always out of reach. It opens itself up to various interpretations, letting you come to your own conclusions without ever affirming or rejecting them. The movie tackles a great many intertwining topics: for me, the most potent one is the need for people to control their own lives, sometimes by controlling others' lives as well. It contorts itself into a tale of obsessive love, of purity and perversion, and of deception and dual identities. It is dark, often morbid, and unsettling, but it is the kind of work you will never forget.

The movie starts in the middle of a cop chase. Leaping from rooftop to rooftop, Scottie Ferguson (Stewart) slips and barely catches a gutter. Perilously hanging on for dear life, he looks down more than five stories and a crippling vertigo paralyzes him. Another policeman reaches down to help, only to fall to his own doom. Scottie's fear of heights is cemented through this traumatic event and he quits the police force. Soon after, he is contacted by an old college buddy who requests his assistance in tailing his wife. He suspects her of being possessed by a ghost and is afraid that the spirit inhabiting his wife, who committed suicide at age 26, will cause her to do the same thing. As he begins following her, Scottie develops an attraction for her that soon turns into an unhealthy fixation. But that is only half the story. After that, it spirals more and more out of control, beyond anything you could have predicted.

Watching Vertigo again, and thinking about it next to Notorious and Psycho, I am struck by Hitchcock's mastery of structure. He seems attracted to scripts with unconventional story arcs and plot progression. Most directors would struggle against invoking boredom with such an uncertain framework. Hitchcock uses it to his advantage to generate suspense, manipulate your expectations, and telegraph events to their breaking points. You have never seen a story told this way, and so you have no idea what might come next. In a horror movie like Psycho, that's the most terrifying fear you can imagine. In Vertigo, that's the strongest, most mesmerizing pull you will ever experience.

The casting of Jimmy Stewart, originally maligned by critics and by Hitchcock himself, turns out to be one of the film's greatest strengths. Stewart is America's hero, the original Tom Hanks, the everyman, the good guy; he is Mr. Smith at Washington and George Bailey with his wonderful life. And here he is deeply disturbed, twisted so far from his off-screen celebrity persona that you feel a torment brewing inside yourself. You want to care for him, you want to believe he is the sweet, kind-hearted soul you know and love, but witnessing his repugnant actions sickens you. No other actor could have pulled off that necessary duality.

The cinematography is, as always, remarkable. The signature track in, zoom out shot reminds us of his technical abilities, but there are many more scenes where his sense of atmosphere defines how he shoots. In the scene at Ernie's where Scottie first sees Madeleine (Novak), the camera moves as if in a dream. The room brightens when she passes by and dims after she leaves. Her platinum hair, pinned up into a spiral, and all-gray suit give her an eerie aura. Hitchcock's use of colors is entrancing; they are inserted into scenes with such presence and purpose that it makes you wonder what they mean. Because it has to mean something, right?

The movie has some flaws. The special effects, both in the opening credits and nightmare sequence, severely date the film. Several key plot points remain unexplained and some of the dialogue rings a little off to our modern ears. (Are people really diagnosed with "acute melancholia, coupled with a guilt complex"?) And for some reason, which may be entirely circumstantial and outside the realm of the film, the movie wasn't as gripping on this viewing as it has been in the past. Still, this is one of Hitchcock's finest movies. I'll now admit that Psycho is my favorite Hitchcock, but I would not have any cause to disagree with someone who placed Vertigo or Notorious in that spot. Vertigo is a masterpiece that would define the entire work of any other director and is essential viewing for anyone interested in cinema as an art form.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052357/