Most Anticipated Films of 2007

When I heard that the Coen brothers were making another film for the first time since the not-so-impressive The Ladykillers, I almost jumped through the ceiling. The Coen brothers have been two of my favourite people in the cinematic world since their American masterpiece Fargo. Ever since then, I've been mesmerized by most of their films and they have had great influence on me.

Getting to the film now, No Country for Old Men is easily the greatest film of the year. No film yet this year has even come close to this one's greatness. I would even go as far as to say that this is the second best Coen brothers film. They have matured their style since the ever so dull Intolerable Cruelty and the disappointing The Ladykillers to come out with this masterful work. Adapted for the screen by (who else) the Coen brothers from Cormac McCarthy's novel of the same name, this film is dark, violent and quite often funny at the same time. The one thing that I have to talk about is the debut of one of the most evil and genuinely scary villains in modern-day film: Anton Chigurh (Bardem). Not since Hannibal Lecter has such an evil character been so calm that it's creepy. His image is deceiving because it wouldn't appear that such a man would be a psychopathic murderer. His pageboy haircut tops it all off as if he was Burton's Willy Wonka. Equipped with a cattle gun, his dark appearance and eerie voice make for memorable scenes. "What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss?"

The technical side of this film is nothing less than perfect. Three people need to be acknowledged for their work on this film (besides the obvious): Carter Burwell, Roger Deakins and the alias Roderick Jaynes (which is actually Ethan and Joel Coen). The original score is absolutely mesmerizing in the film. When listened to by itself, it's nothing compared to when it's put infront of this visual wonder. Roger Deakins' cinematography is beautiful and the editing combined with the cinematography and score just makes this whole movie terrific eye candy.

The film revolves around three different men all pursuing the same thing, a suitcase filled with $2 million. Each character is shown in separate storylines, almost never sharing the screen together. This takes me back to my review of American Gangster where I spoke of Ridley Scott's directorial talents. I was impressed with how he was able to maintain two different storylines and show them both with equal importance, but I am even more impressed with the Coen brothers' way of splitting this film in three, not necessarily showing all three equally, but making each character as important as the next. Not until a little before three quarters of the way through the film do any of the characters actually meet, but when they do meet, this film's thrill factor triples. When Moss (Brolin) and Chigurh face-off, it's a showdown that the audience has been built up for.

The performances in this film are superb. Josh Brolin is terrific and that surprises me. I never saw him as an actor really, but now he proved me wrong. He did a great job. Tommy Lee Jones was fantastic in providing insight and explanation in the film, and also was the person who summed up the film in the end in that wonderful speech of his dreams. The only person who I think gave a brilliant performance in this film was Javier Bardem. His psychopathic character Anton Chigurh will not only be remembered as one of the best performances of the year, but will go down in history as a one of the greatest villains of the screen. Bardem did a terrific job of portraying evil personified from his actions (or lack there of) to his tone. Fantastic performance.

Aside from the technical aspects, the violence and the acting, this film is important for a whole other reason. This film's meaning lies in its title. The film is not about the three men who are looking for stolen money... that's why we never see a conclusion that lets us know where the money is or if Chigurh gets away. The film is not about that (although that builds up the suspense of the film). The whole idea of the film is summed up in Tommy Lee Jones' speech in the last scene of the film.

He explains two dreams he had the night before where he and his father were riding horses in the wilderness. It was cold and snowing and his father was carrying a horn full of fire which he used to light one in 'all that dark and all that cold'. His dream represents the way we see our heroes in our dreams. His father must have been his. We dream of these people who are above all evil, but in reality, there are no such people. In this film there are no such people. This film shows how the country (and most countries) are nowadays. It shows that no matter how good some people can be, they cannot stop all of the evil going on in the world. He says that in his dream, his father carried a horn full of fire. This fire represents the hope that he dreams of, but doesn't exist in his country. The last line of the film goes like this "...he was fixin' to make a fire somewhere out there in all that dark and all that cold, and I knew that whenever I got there he would be there. Out there up ahead. And then I woke up." It's such a sad way to end the film, but it's so true. His hope diminishes when he wakes up.

This film comments on modern-day violence in American culture and it really does a fantastic job. Today is about the youth and the old men are helpless and saddened by the fact that they have lived through so much misery to only live through more in their later years. The title says it all, this is No Country for Old Men.

There is nothing wrong with this movie. I find it to be perfect. The Coen brothers have made another masterpiece that is an instant classic. It's one of my new favourite films and I think that everyone should go out and see this film. I hope to see it nominated for many Oscars come next year. It really deserves the recognition.

There are no words that exist that can express my love for this film. Sheer brilliance from all fronts, especially Daniel Day-Lewis' performance, or rather personification, of Daniel Plainview and Paul Thomas Anderson's masterful direction. Easily the greatest film of the year and perhaps one of the greatest of the decade. This film is extremely relevant to today's time and issues and should be seen by everyone. It's very long runtime might turn people off, but I will make it my duty to recruit people to see this masterpiece.

"I... drink... your... MILKSHAKE! I DRINK IT UP!

Review coming soon .

Le scaphandre et le papillon (2007)
director: Julian Schnabel
starring: Mathieu Amalric, Emmanuelle Seigner, Marie-Josée Croze, Anne Cosigny, Max Von Sydow

This is one of few films that have really impressed me this year. 2007 has been a wonderful year for cinema and having The Diving Bell and the Butterfly released right at the end of it really made for a great conclusion. What I was impressed with the most in this film was not the fact that it was based on a true story or the actor's performances, the cinematography or the screenplay. What impressed me the most was the masterful work by director Julian Schnabel. Don't get me wrong, I loved everything about this film and everything did impress me immensely, but the direction here is impeccable and I thought that Schnabel deserved some more attention for his fantastic directorial job.

"Le scaphandre et le papillon" [or "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" in English] was first a memoir published in 1997 by Jean-Dominique Bauby, the editor of French fashion magazine Elle. It details the author's life after he suffered a massive stroke which ultimately left him fully paralyzed. His condition was the rare Locked-In Syndrome in which the patient is completely aware and awake, but they are physically unresponsive due to the complete paralysis of all of the voluntary muscles in the body. The only part of his body which he could move was his left eyelid. Taking advantage of the one movable body part he had, Bauby wrote his memoir through a series of blinks. This novel was an incredible achievement not only in literature, but in human development.

What I am impressed with is Julian Schnabel's attention to detail and his intricate display of images and camera techniques; angles and focuses that allow us to communicate with the character of Bauby mentally as he himself would. What Schnabel has done here is extremely artistic, but he does not overuse or abuse his visuals to a point where everything just seems like a kaleidoscope slide. Taking Bauby's story and translating it into film was undoubtedly a difficult task, but Schnabel has made what seemed like a near impossible project into something of great importance to cinematic history and of great significance to humanity.

Personally, I can't imagine what Jean-Dominique Bauby was like as a person or how a Locked-In Syndrome patient would be, but I do believe that Mathieu Amalric's performance as Bauby is revolutionary. Acting with only one eye and a fixed position for almost the whole film is an extraordinary feat for an actor. He displayed some of the rawest emotions I have ever seen by an actor and he isn't even able to speak. I am very impressed with Amalric's portrayal and I think that he should be acknowledged for such a brilliant performance.

The supporting cast was also important to the progression of the film and the development of Bauby's character. Marie-Josée Croze and Anne Consigny give good performances as two of Bauby's aides, but the woman who is astonishingly heartbreaking in this film is Emmanuelle Seigner. She plays Bauby's ex-wife, Celine Desmoulins, and emits such a powerful performance that I couldn't help but empathize with her. Such pathos is generated for both Bauby and Celine in this film, but the character who broke my heart the most was Bauby's Papinou. Max Von Sydow played Papinou, Bauby's father, and, even though appearing on screen for a very limited amount of time, gives an emotionally harrowing performance that is incomparable to any tearjerker out there.

Not a film for the faint, the use of cinematography is exquisite, but very dizzying. It's extremely necessary for the film, but some people might be turned off by this. I beg you to give this film a chance if your reason for not watching this is the camera work. It's a brilliantly shot masterpiece by one of my favourite cinematographers of all-time, Janusz Kaminski. The use of colour, angles and focusing makes the scenes from Bauby's point of view much more real. The realism in the film's depiction of this disease from Bauby's perspective is absolutely haunting and also from the perspective of the nurses taking care of him and his family. At the 2008 Academy Awards, cinematographer Robert Elswit (also one of my personal favourites) won the Oscar for his stunning work on There Will Be Blood. Being my favourite film of 2007, it's hard to go against it, but I do believe that The Diving Bell and the Butterfly had much better cinematography and Janusz Kaminski should be holding the Oscar right now. It's a gorgeous film all around, but mainly because of Kaminski's wonderful eye and excellent camera work.

A few weeks ago, I wrote a review for Woody Allen's film Interiors. An amazing film which had fantastic performances and a great screenplay and was also a direct homage to the Swedish director Ingmar Bergman. With The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, I feel that there is some homage or perhaps just similar styles to that of Bergman, too. Modern European cinema always seems to come back around to at least some Bergman influences, but this film is filled with many influences, most of them being visual.

As said previously, Schnabel's attention to detail is impeccable, but he also allows himself the freedom to express his own vision into the film. With some of the best cinematography I've ever seen and a brilliant performance by Amalric, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly has risen to be my second favourite film of 2007. It is an absolutely incredible achievement for Julian Schnabel and has engraved itself into cinema history as a stunning accomplishment of visual expression and analysis of human significance.

This is one of the greatest cinematic experiences of the year. Directed by Sean Penn, this film makes every other film this year look weak and unimportant. Sean Penn, to me, has never been known as a director, but he has directed some great films in the past (The Crossing Guard, The Pledge, The Indian Runner), but none come even close to the greatness of Into the Wild. This is Penn's best film to date and I will always remember this film for a few reasons that I will explain throughout this review.

Adapted from the novel by Jon Krakauer, the story is based on true events that happened in the early 90s. Christopher McCandless, a young student, graduates from University only to donate his entire savings of $24,000 to charity and destroy all of his identification so he can move into the Alaskan wilderness. He doesn't know how long he'll be there, but he's prepared to face nature. Leaving behind a rough relationship with his parents (played by William Hurt and Marcia Gay Harden), Chris changes his name and begins his journey into the wild.

Through the film, Chris' philosophical outlook on life let's us know that he doesn't believe life should depend on communication with others. Having relationships and friends is something that doesn't need to be maintained in life to fulfill it. However, on his journey he encounters many different people that he forms relationships with that help him through this adventure. It's not only everyone that Chris meets that learn from him and his philosophical look on life, but it's Chris himself that learns from these ordinary people. He gets to hear people's stories and empathize with them. He becomes a better person by doing so.

There are many encounters that Chris makes on his journey and they are all important in one way or another. The one that stuck with me and really pulled on my heartstrings was his encounter with Ron Franz (portrayed brilliantly by Hal Holbrook). The relationship they form is touching and the scene with their parting ways is very, very sad. Hal Holbrook hasn't been recognized by AMPAS in all of his cinematic career (which seems like forever), but I do believe he will be nominated this year and it will be a very deserved nomination.

The whole supporting cast was terrific in each of their encounters with Chris and each of them helped shape his character. With such a character to play, Emile Hirsch was up for a great challenge. Seeing him as an actor in only small roles (Lords of Dogtown, Imaginary Heroes), I was very impressed with the performance he pulled off in this film. Not only did he interract with the other characters well, he emodied this character and made me feel his pain. It's sad, but uplifting at the same time. I think Emile Hirsch is this year's Ryan Gosling. The performance is that good and I do hope to see him recognized for this effort.

As for the visuals, the cinematography is beautiful. Eric Gautier, who has photographed other films like The Motorcycle Diaries and some segments in Paris, je t'aime, helps show us why Chris wanted to live in the wild in the first place. He lets us see the beauty of the Alaskan wilderness from angles that can only be dreamt of. It was truly a gorgeous experience. Also, the score was fantastic. Composed by Michael Brook with Kaki King and Eddie Vedder, the music not only helps the characters' emotions come through, but it generates the mood when there are no characters on the screen. Also, the wonderful original soundtrack to this film is written by Eddie Vedder and some of the songs are already being awared. "Guaranteed" and "Rise" are only a few of the many that go perfectly with this epic two and a half hour film.

The running time is perfect (although some may beg to differ). It lets us see the relationships blossom between Chris and the people he encounters in a more than basic way. If this film was crammed into a 90 minute running time, the result wouldn't be as stunning.

Overall, I loved this film. It's one of the best of 2007 and one of the most memorable of the decade. The performances are top-notch (especially from Hirsch, Holbrook and Keener) and the technical aspects are nothing less than excellent. Sean Penn's best film to date, Into the Wild is strongly recommended by me. See it as soon as you can.

Nevermind Hairspray, Enchanted or Across the Universe, Sweeney Todd is the best musical of the year. This is a Gothic masterpiece from director Tim Burton that was revived from Stephen Sondheim's 1979 stage production. This film is probably the best stage-to-screen adaptation since Chicago and is one of the truest musicals I've ever seen. It's not afraid to be a musical with probably less than 30 minutes of actual speaking dialogue and that's something risky in modern cinema. Burton had trouble finding a studio to produce this film because of the fact that none of the musical numbers had upbeat pop songs (and I'm sure the excessive violence didn't help much either). What can you expect when the film is a revival of a Sondheim musical? West Side Story still manages to do well with teenage audiences, so why can't this? Luckily, Paramount picked this project up and it's now being called one of the best films of the year.

Tim Burton has worked with Johnny Depp in six films now and I'd have to say, this is their best work yet. It seems like Burton took bits from all his previous films and combined then into one. It's little bit Corpse Bride, a little bit Sleepy Hollow and a little bit Edward Scissorhands all at the same time. This film is so dark that it screams "Tim Burton" and anyone watching this will know who directed it from the first frame.

I'll be honest, when the film first started (after the credits... the credits were terrific), I wasn't all that impressed with the first musical number. Depp's vocals weren't exactly pleasing to the ears and the song was downright depressing, but it fit the scene perfectly. The moment Sweeney Todd encountered Mrs. Lovett for the first time was when I was glued to this film. The scenes they shared together were absolutely fantastic and from "The Worst Pies in London" on, I was in love with this movie.

In the 1979 stage production, the set consisted of a small rotating piece like any normal stage play. This wasn't nearly enough to depict London as Sondheim imagined it, but was exactly what the stage had room for. This is where Burton's vision is brought to life in the film version; London is a character on its own in the story and to characterize it you need a film. Burton's vision of the dark and grimy London was displayed beautifully by production designer Dante Ferretti and set decorater Francesca Lo Schiavo in the film giving London a character that is not only thought of, but can now be seen.

A razor-wielding Johnny Depp gives his best performance since the first Pirates of the Caribbean film and embodies Sweeney Todd showing us not only the dark side of Sweeney Todd, but the deep emotions of his past life as Benjamin Barker that conflict with his now demonic barber persona that seeks revenge on the people who stole his family. People have been critiquing his vocals saying they're not up to par to be in a musical like this. First of all, did you expect Depp to whip out a voice like Pavarotti? I don't think so. Secondly, the character doesn't need a big voice. Sweeney Todd's songs are angry, yes, but a huge voice for such a subdued character would not work. I think he was perfect in his role and should not be forgotten come Oscar time.

I know that Sweeney Todd is the main character, but the character that stole the film (in my opinion) is Mrs. Lovett. Helena Bonham Carter gives a fantastic performance in this film as the dark, quirky and loveable pie maker. This is a character that has been perfected in the past by such greats like Angela Lansbury and Patti LuPone, but I do say that Helena Bonham Carter does not fail to deliver. She also embodies her character (which isn't seen to its full potential until the near end), but what makes Mrs. Lovett memorable is her witty humour and sometimes careless behaviour. Her "Worst Pies in London" scene is hilarious and character blooms when she performs "By the Sea", but it's not until "Not While I'm Around" with Ed Sanders that we see the reality of this character. Carter does a phenomenal job as Mrs. Lovett and I also think she shouldn't be overlooked come Oscar time.

The rest of the cast is also great (especially Rickman), but the performance from Sacha Baron Cohen will still be the most memorable if for anything it's comedic relief. The score was fantastic and kept true to the original and the costumes by Colleen Atwood were also wonderful.

Overall, this film is absolutely brilliant. Tim Burton is a visionary and Depp and Carter are both terrific. If it wasn't for No Country for Old Men, this would be my favourite film of the year. I recommend this to everyone. There is excess amounts of blood and brutal killings in this film, but they are dramatized in the same way Sleepy Hollow was (the blood looks like watered-down paint so don't be turned off by that). One of the best films of the year, Sweeney Todd should be seen by all. Go and catch it while it's still in theatres now.

Review coming soon .

The Savages (2007)
director: Tamara Jenkins
starring: Laura Linney, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Philip Bosco, Peter Friedman

An impressive sophomore effort from director and writer Tamara Jenkins. Her first film, Slums of Beverly Hills, which was moderately successful, isn't even comparable to the brilliance of this film. Jenkins has written a terrific screenplay which earned her the first Oscar nomination of her career and propelled her into indie stardom. Even though she is still only recognized by a select few people, those people who do know her will undoubtedly acknowledge her brilliance. We need a director like Tamara Jenkins in cinema today; with only a few female directors making films, someone as original and brilliant as her would be a breath of fresh air for Hollywood.

Aside from the screenplay being brilliant, Laura Linney and Philip Seymour Hoffman's performances are stellar. Hoffman had a great year in 2007 with three amazing performances under his belt: The Savages, Charlie Wilson's War and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. Linney, who earned an Oscar nomination for this film, is absolutely hilarious and gives, what I think, is her best performance since You Can Count On Me. She is easy to connect with and her portrayals are always heartbreakingly real. She is one of the best actresses of the past decade, but sometimes goes unnoticed. This is unfortunate because she gets many fantastic roles and always gives a performance worth seeing more than once. I'm glad she was recognized for this film because she gave some of her best work here.

I recommend this film to fans of indie cinema and/or Linney and Hoffman fans. You will be pleased, no doubt about it. On the other hand, I don't think the average moviegoer would appreciate a film like this. It isn't the average person's cup of tea (as you can all tell by the movie's undeserved 3-star rating on Flixster), but I do think it's a fantastic achievement for Tamara Jenkins and should be seen by indie movie fans everywhere.

For a film with so many overused film techniques, it still shines brighter than any other film this year to warm the hearts of its viewers and to generate a more than generous response from the critics. It deserves every single bit of acknowledgement it has been receiving and then some. This film is Adrienne Shelly's best and most accomplished work, but unfortunately, it was also her last. Shelly was murdered on November 1st, 2006 in Manhattan by an Ecuadorian teen while finishing the post-production stage of this film. It's a sad ending for the wonderful actress/director, but in her memory, this film will thrive and make many people happy. She has left us with this little masterpiece that just may be one of the best films of the year.



It's inaccuracies and inconsistencies are indeed flaws, but it is the flaws in this film that make it so quirky that it works as a screwball comedy more-so than a drama. All of the characters in this film are quirky people at times except for Jenna (Russell)'s husband Earl (Sisto). He's the one character that adds a dramatic and dark side to the film. The scenes with him are so evil compared to the rest of the film that it makes such a strong contrast in Jenna's character when she's with Dr. Pomatter (Fillion) compared to her husband. The humour is subtle, so it's not a hilarious comedy, but definitely one that will make you laugh a little and smile inside.



It's brilliantly written and acted, and this is shown to full extent in the character of Jenna. Russell gives a fantastic Oscar-worthy performance in her portrayal of this pregnant, pie-making waitress. As one of the best written characters of the year, Jenna makes it awfully hard to dislike her. Everything she does and everything that happens to her are very realistic (in one way or another) and familiar, which let's the audience sympathize with her. This great main character makes this movie. Cheryl Hines and Andy Griffith also offered memorable roles.



The ending to this film is very uplifting and it helps you understand that this movie wasn't just about a pregnant woman trying to escape with a charming doctor from her abusive husband to make pies for the rest of her life... her story was a message to all women, showing them that there is and always will be opportunities for them in life... that they are important. Adrienne Shelly will be missed greatly and luckily for us, she left us with a terrific film that will be remembered for a long time. Check this film out, everyone. It should not be missed.

I do realize that this film is now nominated for Golden Globes and such, but I still feel that Michael Clayton is underrated by the average moviegoer. I don't think people are giving this film a chance and dismissing it as a bore-fest because the plot doesn't deal with explosions or robots. I watched this film last week (it was one of my most anticipated films of 2007). I don't know what took me so long to see it, but when I finally did I was very pleased. Written and directed by Tony Gilroy (previously a writer for films like Dolores Claiborne, The Devil's Advocate and the Bourne series) in an impressive directorial debut, this film excels in its genre and hosts three of the best performances of the year.

When looking for flaws in this film, I could find only a few and I've decided not to point because there are already many negative reviews floating around. I'm here to praise this film and I will start by acknowledging the original screenplay. Written by Gilroy, the screenplay is very complicated if you don't understand the legal jargon, but if you do, you'll be pleased with a more than satisfying story. When looking at films of the same genre (legal dramas), Wall Street and The Contender come to mind, this film excels in exactly the same ways they do. It's nothing different and nothing that we haven't seen before, but something about it is intriguing and made me feel obliged to listen to every word spoken by these important people.

Just like Wall Street and The Contender, this film has strong performances. Clooney joins the likes of Michael Douglas and Joan Allen as a strong leading character in a legal drama. His performance reminds me of someone, too. Oh, wait... it reminds me of George Clooney! He seems to play himself in this film, but this isn't a bad thing. Look at Jack Nicholson, he plays himself in practically every movie he's been in since 1980 but has been phenomenal nonetheless. Clooney's attitude and character work well with this film and his performance is nothing less than extraordinary. He's proven that he can do it all with Good Night, and Good Luck. and now he's out to get some votes again with Michael Clayton.

The two supporting characters in this film also give brilliant performances. Tom Wilkinson plays Arthur Eden, one of the law firm's (the one Clayton works for) top parters. During a deposition hearing in Milwaukee, Eden suddenly goes crazy and strips naked and runs through the parking lot. Wilkinson plays a good nut (as we've already seen in Batman Begins) and his performance is one of the best I've seen this year. Wilkinson also gives one of the best voiceovers I have ever heard in any film during the opening sequence of Michael Clayton. Very impressive stuff from Tom Wilkinson.

Also a standout in this film is one of my personal favourite actresses of today: Tilda Swinton. As Karen Crowder, the chief legal executive for U-North (one of Clayton's law firm's biggest clients who is being sued for poison pollution... something like we've seen in Erin Brockovich), Swinton gives a performance that I can only describe as electrical. She plays a character that seems so paranoid, yet has so much power and authority that everytime she's onscreen I get goosebumps.

Sydney Pollack also appears in this film as the head of Clayton's law firm, a role which he is so familiar with. He's been playing these authority figures, law firm heads, big-time bosses in most of the films he's been in (Tootsie, Eyes Wide Shut) that he has the performance down pat. With these four big name, big talent actors in one little film like Michael Clayton, you're sure to have excellent performances. If it wasn't for these four, this film wouldn't have been as good as it was. The actors made the film and commanded every scene they were in. This movie, if anything, was to showcase these actors in top form.

As I said before, this was one of my most anticipated films of 2007. I was anticipating this film for four reasons:

1. George Clooney
2. Tilda Swinton
3. Tom Wilkinson
4. Robert Elswit

Who is Robert Elswit? Elswit is one of my personal favourite cinematographers. In the past he has worked on all of P.T. Anderson's films (Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch-Drunk Love), Good Night, and Good Luck., Syriana and the upcoming There Will Be Blood (also P.T. Anderson). His work is amazing and I wasn't let down with Michael Clayton.

Overall, this film is one of the best of 2007. A strong legal drama in the same league as Wall Street that has three of the best performances of the year. A strong directorial debut from Tony Gilroy, a great screenplay (also from Gilroy) and beautiful cinematography from Elswit complete this film. I highly recommend this (although not everyone will love it), and I hope to see this nominated for some Oscars come January.

This isn't a film that has a happy ending. This isn't a film that allows characters' redemption. This isn't a film you want to watch if you're looking for a cheer-up. Sidney Lumet, film veteran and director-extraordinaire, has returned to fine form after a slew of mediocre movies (Gloria, A Stranger Among Us, Guilty as Sin) to bring us Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. This film is Lumet at his finest and his best film since 1982's The Verdict. At 83-years-old, Lumet still has it ("it" being kick-ass technique and a vision sharper than it's ever been) proving to us that he can tackle anything.

Written by Kelly Masterson (her first screenplay), this film is about two brothers , Andy (Hoffman) and Hank (Hawke), who decide to organize the robbery of their parents' jewelry store. Hank needs some extra money to pay for child support and such, so his plan was to have a quick and victimless heist (Sounds easy enough, right?). Well unfortunately for Hank and Andy, the heist doesn't go as planned and their accomplice (who was doing the actual robbing) is killed and their mother (who wasn't supposed to be in the store) is terribly wounded. The chain of events that happen after the "accident" leaves no one in this film unharmed and the family falling apart before our eyes.

If a legendary director and wonderfully original screenplay weren't enough, this film also provides us with four great performances, too. Albert Finney and Marisa Tomei give terrific supporting performances (each of them has their own "remember that scene...", as I like to call it). The one surprise performance in this film was that of Ethan Hawke. Never before has he impressed me this much. I never thought of him as an actual actor... maybe in the Before Sunset/Sunrise films, but that's it. His performance was almost perfect giving the right amounts of guilt and fright making me believe his character had so much innocence at times even knowing perfectly it was all his doing.

Philip Seymour Hoffman is a standout in his role and makes his scumbag-of-a-character one of the most hated of the year. His behaviour and general persona makes Ethan Hawke's actions look tame. Hoffman's best performance of the year is still in Charlie Wilson's War, but this is a close second. His scene in the car with his wife Gina (Tomei) is rough and his pain is felt. This is one of the points in the film where Hank's heist fiasco starts to affect everyone, tearing them to shreds and ultimately revealing their true characters and deep secrets.

This is a genre Lumet has mastered in having films like Serpico and Dog Day Afternoon on his impressive resumé. The one thing about this film that seemed a little too familiar, however, was the pace and editing. It wasn't bad, it was impressive, but it screamed "Quentin Tarantino". I felt like I was watching Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs at some points because of the interlaced stories and backtracking of events. The quick, flashy editing also felt Tarantino-esque. Other than that, the originality of this film gets hight points and still remains Lumet's best work in a good 20 years.

One other thing that's been bothering me is how this film is being called nihilistic. The characters may all be bad people doing bad things, but the true humanism in this film is what frees it from that term.

I can't see any other reasons to give for everyone to see this movie. It's one of the best of the year, has two amazing performances and is a chance to see Lumet, a master, at work again.

Review coming soon .

With a film of this genre, there are many conventions that are usually explored. Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola (being the masters of this genre) have built a standard, I think, of what works and does not work in a crime drama. In American Gangster however, Ridley Scott takes the film in other directions that resemble too closely his historic epics (Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven). Scott does not want this film to come off as another Godfather film or Goodfellas... he wanted to contribute to the genre with his own style. The only problem is that Scott's style is too familiar. It seemed to me that I've seen this done before.

A film that has a true story behind it is usually difficult to critique. Not knowing how faithful this film is to the real events is not something that affects the overall quality of the film, but it does leave an uneasy feeling about the experience. Also, not knowing anything about the story prior to the film might be a good thing in enjoying the film that much more. Aside from that, Scott does do a fantastic job in directing this film. Having two different storylines that do not intersect with each other until the last few scenes of the film and treating them both with equal importance is impressive. Not once did Scott favour one of the storylines over the other. This lets us experience both of these characters' stories and allows for a lot of character development.

When the two lead characters are finally brought together to share the screen, the chemistry between them is great. Unfortunately, prior to their meeting, each actor has to hold their own in their respective storylines, and one actor outperformed the other by miles. Russell Crowe did a great job, but nothing memorable, where on the other hand Denzel Washington embodied the character and brought Frank Lucas to the screen with such force and intimidation, yet with a softer side that let the audience empathize with him.

The supporting cast brings in some good performances, too. Chiwetel Ejiofor and Josh Brolin have great appearances, but it's the great Ruby Dee who steals her scenes and turns in an Oscar-calibre performance (as does Mr. Washington, naturally). The actress who played Denzel's wife in the film (Lymari Nadal) was truly awful and did not make me want to watch her at all. She was the weakest link in the acting area.

Overall, a great movie that displays Ridley Scott's directing abilities (as if we didn't already know he had them), yet doesn't fulfill my expectations of the crime drama genre. With great performances from Denzel and Ruby Dee, this film is not one to miss this year. It may be unlucky at the Oscars since it's following too closely in The Departed's footsteps, but it surely will be recognized.

Unbelievable! This is an amazing piece of film that I find hard to believe isn't getting much attention from the critics. It's beautifully photographed and the technicals are wonderful, but the thing I love the most about this masterful work by Andrew Dominik is the amazing performance by Casey Affleck. It's the best supporting performance of the year and that's really a lot for me to say because I loved Wilkinson in Michael Clayton. Affleck deserves all the praise he's getting.

Review coming soon .