| Movie | Rating | Review | Date | Your Rating | Match | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Twelve Monkeys (12 Monkeys) - R |
''There's the television. It's all right there - all right there. Look, listen, kneel, pray. Commercials! We're not productive anymore. We don't make things anymore. It's all automated. What are we *for* then? We're consumers, Jim. Yeah. Okay, okay. Buy a lot of stuff, you're a good citizen. But if you don't buy a lot of stuff, if you don't, what are you then, I ask you? What? Mentally *ill*. Fact, Jim, fact - if you don't buy things - toilet paper, new cars, computerized yo-yos, electrically-operated sexual devices, stereo systems with brain-implanted headphones, screwdrivers with miniature built-in radar devices, voice-activated computers...'' In a future world devastated by disease, a convict, James Cole is sent back in time to gather information about the man-made virus that wiped out most of humanity on the planet. Bruce Willis: James Cole Madeleine Stowe: Kathryn Railly Brad Pitt: Jeffrey Goines Terry Gilliam's twisted tale of a virus/illness destroying all but a handful of people across the Planet, forcing them to move beneath the surface while one man is sent back in time to gather information about the causes of said illness. Haunting, mesmerizing, and highly stylized film that also boasts one of Bruce Willis' best performances ever. What sets 12 Monkeys apart from most time-travel/sci-fi films is that Bruce's character actually has to cope with the psychological effects of time-travel, that is, not knowing what reality is actually happening, the place that the time-traveler comes from or goes to is in question. Also, the film recognizes that things that have past cannot be altered and that the prevention of a cataclysmic event, in this case the release of said virus, cannot be stopped or changed. As Willis asserts "It's already happened," while he's in a mental hospital, the major dilemma the film trudges into is not a trite, overdone plot to save the world; instead it's Willis' inner struggle to simply survive himself. It's a fresh, innovative concept, and it works beautifully thanks to a well written script by Peoples and Gilliam's unique brand of dementia. Besides this, 12 Monkey's storytelling is totally non-linear and instead opts to distort and bend the way the story is told skillfully incorporating a bevy of different time sequences: flashbacks, dreams, memories, the present, the past, the future, and even a scene that is lifted out of Hitchcock's Vertigo. All serve to envelop the viewer into its disturbing cacophony of madness and futility. Visually, Terry Gilliam is a master of desolate umbrage and shadow rivaling Tim Burton in his strikingly despondent scenery and imagery. With cold, wide, and immersing cinematography, Gilliam plunges into the colourless surroundings and darkness of his characters. The scenes are often bathed in a strangely antiseptic, dead white and help serve as a contrast to the often veering-on-madness scenes and characters. Performance-wise, Brad Pitt steals most scenes, filling them with a loony, off-the-wall performance that deservedly earned him an Oscar nomination. As mentioned, Bruce Willis gives a mighty performance of his career, not reverting to his heroic cliches and cardboard hero roles and instead portraying Cole as a simple, poignant, tragic everyman. Equally good is Madeline Stowe as Willis' psychologist. She holds her own, injecting her character with both wild energy and strength as she collapses under the weight of what she comes to believe is a false religion. Gilliam's expert, overwhelming, and complex handling of what could have been a routine action/sci-fi film, makes 12 Monkeys a compelling vision of a nightmarish, futuristic landscape that has not been since Gilliam's Brazil. Its rich, well-thought out, intricate storyline along with bravura performances from the entire cast and its brooding, bleak cinematography make it a masterpiece of madness that spirals into one hell of a looped paradox. The future is history. |
November 25, 2009 | N/A | |||
| The Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King - PG-13 |
''I give hope to men. I keep none for myself.'' The former Fellowship of the Ring prepare for the final battle for Middle Earth, while Frodo & Sam approach Mount Doom to destroy the One Ring. Viggo Mortensen: Aragorn Return of the King asserts itself as the final and best of the Rings Trilogy. The Lord of the Rings trilogy as a whole became the most nominated film series in Academy Award history with 30 nominations, surpassing both the Godfather trilogy (28) and the Star Wars franchise(21). It broke another record by winning all the Oscars for which it was nominated; including Best Picture, and Best Director(11 out of 11). The previous record was nine out of nine by The Last Emperor(1987) and nine out of nine by Gigi(1958). Also the third of only three films to win 11 Academy Awards, including Best Picture. I recall seeing it at the cinema when it first was released, then seeing three more times because of the greatness and inspiration it provides. Being a fan of the book trilogy Lord of the Rings which I read many years ago when I was 14, I did have some minor disappointments at Saruman being absent from the theatrical version and others; including certain Witch King scenes and The Mouth Of Sauron at the Black Gate which I loved in the book. Despite these missing from the Theatrical version, Return of the King had me glued to the screen for its three hour duration; the reasons why?, because in essence Return of the King has so much...majestic set pieces, beautiful landscapes, perfect costumes, dazzling earthy effects, deeply portrayed characters and wonderful storytelling. Similarly to it's predecessor The Two Towers; we are treated to separated characters; on one side it flicks to Sam, Frodo and Smeagol as they approach Mordor and Mount Doom then back to Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas trekking towards the Paths of the Dead and preparing for eminent battle. But Return of the King Goes one step further than it's prequels, because then we also have all these other pivotal characters; Gandalf and Pippin at the White City, in all it's magnificence with the maddened Denethor. Theoden and Eomer preparing to help Gondor from the descending armies of darkness. The secretive Eowyn with Merry going to Gondor's aid, even though they are not permitted too. Return Of the King gives so much detail and luscious fantasy and story before we even come to the battle scenes its a great film. Chuck in the battle at the White City, the final climactic onslaught at the Black Gate and the powerful scene where Sam carries Frodo up Mount Doom showing the powerful bond of friendship and vigor, bravery and compassion, then what you have is not only a film which is great but one that is the definition of what can only be described as close to perfection. ''Courage, Merry, courage for our friends.'' The musical score retains its beauty, elegance and power that Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers had; Quite simply Howard Shore has made a soundtrack and score on all three films that has unrivaled beauty and depth, that is essentially another invisible character among the cast like any wearer of the ring. When you hear Howard Shore on any Lord of the Rings film, it's like hearing soothing, blaring, powerful, emotional tones from heaven. The score simply is THAT perfect. At this point of the third book or film, everyone has come to know and love all of the characters and formed emotional ties; thus the stakes have become tremendously high for the characters and this makes viewing even more exciting and enriching. Kingdoms are at their knees, and the only two characters who can save Middle Earth are gradually becoming weaker and weaker. The tension was very high and I can honestly say that out of all 3, this was the only one that had me on the edge of my seat. There were many memorable scenes (one of my favourites including the part with the Shelob; An interesting fact; Peter Jackson is arachnophobic and based the Shelob design on the types of spiders he feared the most.)that made this the classic that it is sure to stay for decades to come. ''Hold your ground, hold your ground! Sons of Gondor, of Rohan, my brothers! I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. A day may come when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. An hour of woes and shattered shields, when the age of men comes crashing down! But it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!'' This is the longest of the series, mostly because of the ending that seems to last, albeit slightly warped from the book (The Book had a Shire incident with Saruman at its peak). This was still a good ending, a feel good conclusion; and it allows us to see why Frodo did what he chose to do effectively. He, and us the audience, have gone through an incredible ordeal and I think we needed that 20 minute linger. When the battle is over, and the celebrations have ended, there is a sad emptiness felt. The films spanned over 3 years, the filming for the trilogy nearly 10 years, as all films were shot simultaneously together. ''That's for Frodo! And for the Shire! And that's for my old Gaffer!'' For me no film or indeed book, can never be too long or too short, and rarely when you get a film as visionary as Return of the King do you want it to end. I know I surely didn't. It's magical and mesmerizing; be it a moving scene with Ian Mckellan and Billy Boyd preparing for fighting at Minas Tirith or Elijah Wood and Sean Astin struggling with the Ring's evil resonance, this film is in Gollums words: very precious. ''Home is behind, the world ahead... And there are many paths to tread. Through shadow, to the edge of night, until the stars are all alight... Mist and shadow, cloud and shade, all shall fade... all... shall... fade...'' |
November 25, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Smultronstället (Wild Strawberries) - Unrated |
''The punishment is loneliness.'' After living a life marked by coldness, an aging professor is forced to confront the emptiness of his existence. Victor Sjöström: Dr. Isak Borg Ingmar Bergman has indeed done it yet again. Firstly the captivating Seventh Seal blew me away with it's masterful strokes of genius and layered themes of death; Now, Smultronstället AKA Wild Strawberries. The genius is replicated in it's questions and answers it gives us the viewers on a very important aspect to me, Mortality... Thus also addressing the purpose of our life. Wild Strawberries addresses the choices of a Professor whom has succeeded academically but with love and company he has failed and pales in comparison to the former achievements. Dreams are used to great effect to give us some rather surreal imaginative insight into Borg's subconscious and the looming grip of Death's chilling touch. I was especially was impressed by a dream of his; in which he goes up behind a man only to touch him and for the said man to collapse, a mutated head appear, and a chilling symbolized metaphor is shown to us. The first dream Dr. Borg experiences is dark and puzzling due mainly to its unclear meaning and uncanny nature. The street is deserted and clear. Dr. Borg approaches a clock and looks, but it is without hands. He looks at his pocket watch and it is also without hands. The black and white scene is subdued and calm, but draws the viewer in all the while guessing what's next. The scene is without music and progresses with the sound of a heart beat that quickens with each step taken as he walks along the desolate boulevard. When Dr. Borg approaches a man, the man turns and lacks a face. Shortly after, a cart-drawn casket passes and knocks its wheel off after colliding with a lamp post. The casket falls, opens, and a hand hangs exposed. Dr. Borg approaches the casket preparing to look inside when the hand reaches and clutches his hand. Surprised and frightened, he struggles to free the grip and soon recognizes that the face of the man in the casket is his own. Proceeding to see himself in a coffin is equally unnerving yet shows an emphasis on the man's fear of death and time. Victor Sjöström as Dr. Isak Borg, the main protagonist centered in the film, wonderfully gives life to a faceted character whom we see change throughout the progress of the story. It's lovely to see as he becomes sentimental and we see memories of his, in a Christmas Carol manner of story-telling. It's beautifully executed by Bergman and wonderfully acted out by Victor. Bibi Andersson as Sara, the beautiful, deep, faceted Daughter-In-Law of Isak Borg, really does shine everytime she is on screen. Her beauty doesn't eclipse the fact that she remains in the film a talented actress, and proves she's not just a pretty face as she deals with some challenging engrossing material. Jullan Kindahl as Agda, Folke Sundquist as Anders and Björn Bjelfvenstam as Viktor represent the young generation and their energized outlook on life. Was interesting to see both men fighting about the existence of God, which like Wild Strawberries uses Black and White, the same can not be said of the issue to do with this age old question. The truth is somewhere in the middle; man's invention to fool himself into thinking he isn't alone. Max von Sydow as Henrik Åkerman, also pops up, and I was extremely reminiscent of him in his starring role from Seventh Seal. Was pleased to see him crop up again in a Bergman collaboration Picture. Wild Strawberries is full of hidden meanings and messages, our race against time to live, to make the right choices, and our realization that no choice is wrong or right. In a sense the title isn't just describing Strawberries, its describing People, like a Strawberry we too wither and die, starting out full of life and a tasty blooming vitality. The loss of youth, the pain of growing old, and the primal fears of being alone and dying. The film is filled with Dr. Borg's puzzling dreams and remembrances of his early life, but much of the charm and warmth that is contained throughout the movie is owed to the secondary characters. Dr. Borg's daughter-in-law, Marianne is a delight to watch because she can smile like an angle and can be bluntly frank, all at the same time. Her stunning classic looks and assured mannerism helps the movie in a great way. Agda has lived with the doctor as his housekeeper for forty years. She and Dr. Borg hysterically argues as if man and wife. She knows the doctor well and understands him like the other people in his life do not. Sara, the young girl who wakes the doctor as he lay near the wild strawberries is a joy to watch. She shows the doctor new ways to look at the world by not taking anything too seriously. She takes in all that life has to offer and brings out the joy. Her slight touch to the doctor's face while they drove is one of the warmest scenes in the film and defines her loving character. There are many warm moments in the film, and many moments of darkness. The beginning of the film was dark, puzzling, and melancholy, and the end of the film was warm, bright and full of life and tenderness. Wild Strawberries makes us imagine and fear time. Time is the enemy, as we learn from the symbolic clock with no hands. We may be able to take the hands away but we can never stop time. Our heart also is a clock of sorts and the furious beating of ones heart depending on it's pace can be another fear, another definition of our perception of time and our fear of being powerless before it. Wild Strawberries definitely let's this daunting fact hit home. |
November 24, 2009 | N/A | |||
| The Seventh Seal (Det Sjunde inseglet) - Unrated |
''I met Death today. We are playing chess.'' A man seeks answers about life, death, and the existence of God as he plays chess against the Grim Reaper during the Black Plague. Max von Sydow: Antonius Block Seventh Seal is Dark, beautiful, meaningful, and indeed explores the most serious themes of faith and search for the Divine, Seal is known as one of the masterpieces of Bergman. One of the film's inspirations was a painting that Bergman saw as a young boy and was awed by: "There was everything that one's imagination could desire. Angels, saints, dragons, prophets, devils, humans. There were very frightening animals: serpents in paradise, Balaam's ass, Jonah's whale, the eagle of Revelation. All this was surrounded by heavenly, earthly and subterranean landscapes of strange yet familiar beauty. I remember Death playing chess with a Crusader, Death sawing at a tree to a branch of which clung a naked man with staring eyes, and across a gentle hill Death leading the final dance towards the dark lands''. The film follows the journey of a knight Antonius Block (Sydow) returning from the Crusades, through Sweden ravaged by plague. The knight has lost his faith in the blood and horrors of the battlefield, "Faith is a torment. It is like loving someone who is out there in the darkness but never appears, no matter how loudly you call." On his way home, he encounters people dying from starvation and disease, being burnt as witches, and encounters with Death(Bengt Ekerot) himself who challenges him to play a game of chess. We then have the story of the family; a happy juggler, his wife, and their infant son. This family is happy because they love each other. They represent the simple joys and hopes of ordinary life in human proportions. The Seventh Seal is not all heavy on significance though. It has an incredible story with believable characters, wonderful performances, lots of comic relief and moves easily from drama to comedy as executed in the great Shakespearean plays. We meet an actor named Jof (Nils Poppe), his wife Mia (Bibi Andersson), and their infant son Mikael. Block looks with envy on the simple love of this family for their child. Both Jof and Block see visions of the spiritual world but Jof's visions are life affirming whereas Block sees only reflections of darkness. The film has unforgettable images such as a hawk floating in a cloudless sky, two horses standing in the surf, Jof's vision of the Virgin Mary caring for her child, and a frightening procession of plague-infected flagellants. In one of the most intense scenes, Block enters a church and confides in a cloaked man he believes to be a priest (but is actually Death). He asks Death many questions about God, but recieves no answers. This is the first time we see Block have some kind of weakness; he almost breaks down and relents thus says 'I call out to Him in the darkness, but it's as if no-one was there', and 'I want God to stretch out His hand, uncover His face and speak to me.' What answer does he receive? Not even Death knows if God exists. At the end of this scene, Block points out that we 'should make an idol of our fear, and that idol we should call God.' This profound statement is reflected throughout the rest of the film, as we realize that the communities across Sweden don't simply believe in God, but they also live in fear of him. They see the plague as a punishment directly from Him, cue a casual performance with a sinister march, where the damned whip themselves and monks sing the Dies Irae, whilst townspeople emotion lackingly say 'Judgement day looms' in the local tavern. Later, Block encounters a witch, whom is being prepared to be burnt at the stake. The first time he sees her, he casually asks her if she has 'seen the Devil'?, but is given no reply. He sees her once more as she is about to be burnt and gives his reason: 'I want to ask him about God.' What comes next is one of the most powerful images of the film. The witch asks Block what he sees in her eyes? and apart from fear, he sees nothing. No Devil. No God. In the end, Block does his good deed before his death. Seeing his looming checkmate and defeat at hand, he purposely knocks the pieces of the chessboard to momentarily stop the game whilst the young couple, Jof (Nils Poppe) and Mia (Bibi Andersson) escape. Death asks him 'Did you profit from your respite?', and he replies 'Yes, I did.' With this selfless act he has saved other lives disregarding his own. Thus actually saving his own soul. On to the young couple, they have been interpreted as many different things, what their role is in the film and if they are simply a device. Many believe they symbolize the Virgin Mary and Joseph, however I believe not. Bergman clearly says that they do not represent Mary and Joseph, the evidence being, why would Jof have a vision of the Virgin Mary if she was his wife? Jof provides much of the comic relief, the film, although short, his intense and challenges entice you to think. Jof, who appears innocent, clumsy and somewhat stupid, allows us to take a moment from the film and simply laugh. He provides more than this however. He, his wife, and their baby all appear to be innocent and good. They represent the purity in people, and even through the plague, a corrupt society and man's doubt in God and religion, there still are pure people. In conclusion, I can say that The Seventh Seal is certainly one of the greatest films ever crafted or conceived. The unfathomably well-made script, the wonderful photography (shot by one of Bergman's regulars, Gunnar Fischer), the haunting score, the incredible acting and the powerful message all make The Seventh Seal one of the few stunning films ever to be created back in the 50s and even to present day. What is the answer to the ever asked question though? Does God exist? Is the idea of a supreme entity a reality? The answer is not black and white, its quite simple...we will never know, not until our time comes. Thus begins the circle again for another generation; ultimately its the journey and our fulfillment of life that reaps the most glory, not the questions about what happens afterwards. |
November 24, 2009 | N/A | |||
| King Kong - Unrated |
''Oh no, it wasn't the airplanes. It was beauty killed the beast.'' A film crew goes to a tropical island for an exotic location shoot and discovers a colossal giant gorilla who takes a shine to their female blonde star. Fay Wray: Ann Darrow King Kong is the story of Carl Denham played by Robert Armstrong, a filmmaker known for his films being set in exotic locations, who has a new mysterious project but finds himself without a star for the film. On the street he meets Ann Darrow wonderfully played by beautiful Fay Wray, a young woman who has been driven to poverty by the Depression. Denham convinces Darrow to join his crew, offering her a starring role in his new project. They then sail aboard the freighter Venture and head off to Denham's secret location. As the ship gets closer to their destination, Denham reveals them that the place they are looking for is a secret island where a legendary monster named Kong is supposed to live. It is only after Ann Darrow gets kidnapped by the island's inhabitants when the director discovers what he has come to find that being Kong, the giant gorilla and now that he has Darrow in his hand, the crew will have to venture into the dangerous jungle to save her. The story is a mixture of horror, fantasy and adventure. Put together by famous crime writer Edgar Wallace and Merian C. Cooper himself, but the actual script was completed by James Ashmore Creelman and Ruth Rose actually Schoedsack's wife, who developed the story and in the process created one of the most memorable and ahead of its time film in history. While the plot is certainly simple, it's filled with a constant series of thrilling scenes that propel it forward and literally reinvented the adventure genre. Also, there is a good deal of character development despite some clichéd, even for the time period, dialogs. The fact that Rose and the directors were notorious adventurers on their own account, gives the plot a strong sense of realism despite its fantastic plot, as the adventure mirrors the group's real exploits. Director Ernest B. Schoedsack was definitely the best man for the job of making Cooper's ideas a reality, as his great eye for visuals and remarkable technical proficiency were instrumental in the making of this, the duo's greatest challenge. For it's time the effects granted look dated now but miraculously grand for 1933, the acting and performances are effortless and faultless. The breath taking finale also that lasts 6 minutes really shows off aerial photography and the tragedy of Kong. King Kong will remain a classic for hundreds of years, which unsurprisingly inspired admirer Peter Jackson to remake this colossus. |
November 24, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Titanic - PG-13 | November 24, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Gönül yarasi (Lovelorn) - Unrated | November 24, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day - PG-13 |
''Not everything comes along just when we want it. There are times when decisions just have to be made, or you certainly will miss out.'' Guinevere Pettigrew, a middle-aged London governess, finds herself unfairly dismissed from her job. An attempt to gain new employment catapults her into the glamorous world and dizzying social whirl of an American actress and singer, Delysia Lafosse. Amy Adams; Delysia Lafosse Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day is a lovely, quaint film breathing life into the romantic comedy genre. The film shows the benefit of submerging to literature for inspiration and it develops its characters well because of it. Miss Pettigrew and Delysia both possess the characteristics the other lacks and compliment themselves, throughout the entire 90 minute period. Miss Pettigrew effortlessly slides along it's run time, the film utilizes its running length well. It doesn't have to tack any extras on and finishes succinctly on a positive note. Jazzed up with an all star cast to boot; Frances McDormand, Amy Adams, Ciarán Hinds, Shirley Henderson, Lee Pace, Mark Strong, and Tom Payne. The story (all of which takes place in a single day and the following night) follows Miss Pettigrew, a presumably troubled yet effective nanny, as she assists a young actress, Delysia, choose which of the three men she is seeing to marry. I felt compelled to tell you the story because it was difficult for me to follow. Fortunately, this wasn't because the film was convoluted, but it moved quickly. The opening sequence when two of the three men are shown is nearly impossible to follow until one realizes Delysia's promiscuity. This is representative of the film's greatest strength: it's simply fun to watch. One generally doesn't know what will happen next or how poverty-stricken Miss Pettigrew will react in the various wealthy-class social gatherings to which Delysia leads her. As odd as it sounds, Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day is a romantic comedy period piece, a commonly used strategy but a rarely effective one. In most films which attempt this, the primary character finds a love interest and the supportive friend, eventually finds romance as well. The story focuses on the primary romantic interest in the friend instead of the titular character. So, we really hope Miss Pettigrew finds someone and when she does, we feel even more satisfied. She not only helps Delysia, but herself too. Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day can easily be interpreted as a lesson on the virtues of giving, or placing others' needs ahead of one's own gains. ''I am not an expert on love, I am an expert on the lack of love, Delysia, and that is a fate from which I wish more fervently to save you.'' The production quality is crisp and clinical, and Director Bharat Nalluri, did a great job creating the elevator as a symbol of the distance between the two women and their lovers. This is cleverly applied as one sees Delysia in the elevator hiding from Phil, unsure about which man she wishes to marry, and then one sees Joe through the elevator which is symbolic of Miss Pettigrew's distance from men. The lighting is mostly high-key, but low key during the bar sequences with carefully placed spotlights. There are few long shots in the film, but a key one occurs when Edyth sees Miss Pettigrew at the beginning. It's a wonderful way to accentuate a scene and heighten its importance for the entire film. I highly recommend this film to anyone, whom enjoys romance, comedy or light hearted period films. The witty dialogue, costumes and settings can be appreciated by any film lover. I marvel at how such a lovely book published in 1938 receives a film adaptation 70 years later, thus it has even enchanted me enough to hunt down the book due to it's clever storytelling. A definite charmer. ''I've been looking for you all night, and I believe, all of my life. If you'll have me.'' |
November 23, 2009 | N/A | |||
| State of Play - PG-13 |
''You're just seeking the truth. You're a truth seeker. You can't help it, that is just who you are.'' A team of investigative reporters work alongside a police detective to try to solve the murder of a congressman's mistress. Russell Crowe: Cal McAffrey Many investigative thrillers focus on detectives digging around for the answers, but State of Play chooses to center around a complex story focused on by a newspaper. Cut a long story short, the forces and pressures motivating a reporter are not altogether the same as a lawful detective, which makes for a much more unique plot with characters an audience can view as more like themselves. A detective must identify a suspect, or catch a murderer is doing their job; a journalist who puts the pieces together himself in the pursuit of truth, is a hero on an entirely new level. Oscar winner(2000, Gladiator)Russell Crowe stars in one of his certainly unique roles; partaking as a seasoned investigative reporter named Cal McAffrey. Crowe somehow more easily portrays Americans than any Australian or British actor working in Hollywood and he brings a light-hearted spirit to his serious role. His character finds himself in a dangerous place when his personal friendships with a congressman and his wife (Ben Affleck, Robin Wright Penn) come at odds with his job when news breaks that the congressman was having an affair with a girl who recently died in a DC subway accident. McAffrey first tries to protect his friend, but when he sees trends leading to conspiracy, his professional instincts take hold of his obssesive nature. Cameron Lynne: Well, I happen to like miss Della Frye... and yes, I did send her down there to winkle something out of you. She's hungry, she's cheap and she churns up copy every hour. Cal McAffrey: Yeah, I now... I'm overfed, I'm too expensive and I take way too long. State of Play brags a diverse but star laden cast. Crowe is the dependable star vehicle, Ben Affleck the sometimes under-rated acting talent, and Rachel McAdams makes a triumphant return to the screen as a young journalist/blogger who assists Crowe. Also appearing in the film are (Oscar Winner 2006 The Queen)Helen Mirren as the editor, Jeff Daniels as fellow politician to Affleck and even Jason Bateman makes a cameo. All of them are talented and have proved so in many different genres, but never have they been together to make a thrilling puzzle of politics and journalism. It's also the first experiment in the genre for the director, Kevin Macdonald (The Last King of Scotland) Macdonald keeps this film slick and exciting, generally refusing to use a tripod but not distracting us with shaky camera-work either. He mixes lots of close detail shots with scene setters that tell the story at a provocative angle. There are numerous albeit typical thriller movie conventions used; but he makes it his own; He's a director certainly worth keeping an eye on. Credit must also go to an incredibly well-assembled writing team. Although based on a BBC mini-series of the same name, State of Play boasts Michael Clayton creator and penner of the Bourne series Tony Gilroy for the drama and action, Shattered Glass creator Billy Ray for the journalism expertise and Matthew Michael Carnahan (Lions for Lambs, The Kindgom) for the political/military end. It's amazing to see how that all plays together so nicely with so many reputable writers. Some of the twists might be more on the extreme side, but it's mostly convincing and exciting the whole way through. State of Play hooks you and keeps you guessing. It tries to keep the characters intimate and worth caring about while also making sure the story picks up velocity. Subplots occasionally get in the way (McAffrey's personal connection to Wright Penn's character among them) but you become pretty easily invested in what's going on and are frightened when what seemed like a nice mystery suddenly gets serious. This is a thriller that is smart and quick and never blows itself out of proportion. It holds its ground and it does so with much talent. Lastly, the film questions the necessary extent of hard edged reporting, but also revels in its necessity. Watergate is alluded to as a building where a couple key companies are located. The connection is purposeful; we're supposed to see the scandal as a fictional modern recreation of Watergate in terms of how it's reported and uncovered. While films in the vein of All the King's Men praised the work of journalists, Play is too stubborn to give them full attention and glory, bringing into the discussion the idea of selling papers and not waiting too long to get all the facts or how the Internet/blog-sphere twists the news in various ways; for sales and profits disregarding the truth if necessary. It might not be at the front of your mind while enjoying State of Play, but it sets it above the many over baked detective thrillers out there any day. Stephen Collins: I thought you didn't call them yet? Cal McAffrey: I lied. |
November 23, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Crossing Over - R | November 23, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| 21 Grams - R |
''How many lives do we live? How many times do we die? They say we all lose 21 grams...'' A freak accident brings together a critically ill mathematician (Penn), a grieving mother (Watts) and a born-again ex-con (Del Toro). Sean Penn: Paul Rivers ''God knows when a single hair moves on your head.'' Director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu throws out a line of tension and keeps it incredibly taunt from beginning to end while exploring the most fundamental human emotions: fear, love, lust, and tragic loss. Capturing intense performances from Sean Penn, Naomi Watts and Benicio Del Toro, not to mention from Charlotte Gainsbourg and Melissa Leo also. Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu uses in 21 Grams a technique being seen more and more in film, a technique in which the story is not told in chronological order, but temporarily scattered. This technique is similar to that used by, for example, Christopher Nolan in Memento(2000) in which the story is told in reverse chronological order. Here there is a mixed pattern as the story unfolds, sometimes in sequence, sometimes out of sequence. At first it is disconcerting, then intriguing, and finally everything begins to take shape and focus into understanding in our minds, as an audience. I don't feel this technique is necessary, but it does have the virtue of forcing the viewer to become engaged in trying to figure out what they are experiencing and watching, and perhaps this heightens the cinematic dilemmas which arise throughout. ''You know what I thought when mom died? I couldn't understand how you could talk to people again, how you could laugh... again. I couldn't understand how you could play with us. And no, no that's a lie, life does not just go on.'' There are three stories strung together on a single strand of fate. First there is the story of Jack Jordan (Del Toro) a petty macho criminal who has found Jesus and is a born again, enlightened soul. Secondly, there is that of Paul Rivers (Penn), a college professor of mathematics who is dying because of a defective heart. Thirdly there is that of Cristina Peck (Watts) who has found what she wants in life with a husband she loves and two young daughters. Lastly, the catalyst which occurs, the tragic accident that seals their differing fates, and brings horror into their lives. The story is told in starkly realistic scenes spliced in jarring complexities, shifting from one character's story to the other. The effect is to give us relief from the terrible events of one part of story, only to lead into another thread, and then to pull away from that story and into a third until the stories merge into one. I cannot say enough about the performances of the three leads. Sean Penn is brilliant in an understated way as he projects charm and tenderness, desperation and hope, and a kind of hopelessness headed for a flat line. Naomi Watts is electrifying in the intensity she brings to the most emotionally-wrought scenes. She is one of the most amazing actresses working today, and if you haven't seen her, see her here. You won't forget. She was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actress (losing out to Charlize Theron in Monster), and much the same can be said of Benicio Del Toro who was also nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor (losing out to Tim Robbins in Mystic River). Del Toro's portrayal of a fated man who both found and lost his faith because of tragic events and his own failure of character was totally convincing, and very tragic, ultimately emotional for us watching him. ''The earth turned to bring us closer. It turned on itself and in us, until it finally brought us together in this dream.'' If I had to criticize I would say that Cristina's initial feeling that she couldn't be bothered to help prosecute Jack Jordan for killing her family did not square well with her later feeling that she wanted to kill him. Yet, I suppose, one's feelings can change; emotions can alter. I also didn't think Jordan was the kind of character who would hit and run. He takes responsibility for his actions; turns himself in and says that he has a responsibility to God. As far as the ending goes, note that Cristina is dressed in bright, almost happy colours because of what was discovered when she donated her type O-positive blood to save Paul's life. Obviously I can't reveal what was discovered, but I'm willing to assume many found it redeeming and hopeful while others labeled the affair as ironic, then the minority whom classed it as cheap and easy. Personally I thought it worked because everything in 21 Grams revolves around these seemingly random people, all connected by this one tragic incident, which ultimately destines their lives all to be entwined; leaving them with no choice to the contrary. ''How much did 21 grams weigh?'' |
November 20, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Disney's A Christmas Carol - PG |
''Humbug!'' An animated retelling of Charles Dickens classic novel about a Victorian-era miser taken on a journey of self-redemption, courtesy of several mysterious Christmas apparitions. Jim Carrey: Scrooge ''I'm light as a feather!...'' Disney's A Christmas Carol is a solid adaptation of the Charles Dickens' classic, although lacking sometimes in the emotional connection to humanity; inherent in some of other previous versions of this timeless story. The plot of the film obviously comprises of the traditional story of Ebenezer Scrooge, the grouchy old miser whom is in turn visited by the Ghosts of his friend Jacob Marley, Christmas Past, Present, and Things Yet to Come. Thus all spirits proceed in giving him visions of his life and the consequences of proceeding in his greedy, unemotional way. One path being of financial materialistic glory, the redeeming road comprising of selfless acts; kindness and consideration for others less fortunate. The legendary role of Scrooge is played by Jim Carrey (where as he also voices the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and other characters). I was a touched with Carrey giving this character life with his voice alone. With this being an animated film, his portrayal is a very faceted performance from Carrey, and were this a live-action adaptation, he would have truly breathed even more life into the main protagonist, with his inane comedic skills. Gary Oldman provides his talented voice to Bob Cratchit, Marley, and Tiny Tim. Bob even looks like Oldman albeit a tad shorter and rounder than the master of change. A Christmas Carol was directed by Robert Zemeckis, whom here continues to try and refine his favoured medium of production, animated motion capture. Disney's A Christmas Carol is on par, animation wise with his previous projects, The Polar Express and Beowulf, but it still doesn't manage to look as good as live-action would, nor as polished as other CG-animated products; though I will say in it's defense, there were certain shots where the lighting was so well designed that I was fooled momentarily believing some of the characters on screen were real. Ebenezer Scrooge: What do you want with me? Jacob Marley: You will be haunted by three spirits. Ebenezer Scrooge: I'd rather not. I saw this film in 3D, the first time I've ever seen a full feature length film in 3D at the cinema, and I came away impressed with certain aspects, while a touch frustrated with others. A simple dolly shot in 3D has a marvelous look resonating from it's use, simply beautiful and truly enticing me into this world, as well the depth of field in a simple shot where two characters are in frame is astounding, but then whenever a shot of someone's hand flying out toward the audience is shown, that impressiveness previously disappears. Zemeckis has definitely made a visually intriguing film, a highly original take on this classic story, while also being faithful to the source, and there are many good times to be had within. I think the best way to sum up Disney's A Christmas Carol is that it's style over substance, often taking liberties with the story and skipping vital detailed parts like it's racing through Charles Dickens tale. The film seems to be more interested in being a showcase rollercoaster of impressive visuals rather than one of creating emotional connection with the characters. It's just, whenever a sequence begins to evolve really intriguing emotionally, it pulls away into another crazy storm of fast paced flying. As a whole, Disney's A Christmas Carol is a jolly experience at the cinema, though it's less of a sentimental, character building piece of story and more of a high octane effects ride, valuing entertainment rather than Dickens story, but there again, isn't that why most go to the films in the first place? I know I certainly expect something deeper, meaningful usually but this being Disney and a family supportive project it succeeds in showing the children and even adults amazement visually. ''God bless us all...every one!'' |
November 20, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant - PG-13 |
''Vampires don't need cellphones.'' A young boy named Darren Shan meets a mysterious man at a freak show who turns out to be a Vampire. After a series of events Darren must leave his normal life and go on the road with the Cirque Du Freak and become a Vampire. John C. Reilly: Larten Crepsley It's very easy in this day and age to dismiss any film based on a successful young adult book series as just a studio's attempt to throw something up against the wall that could effectively begin a franchise and seeing if it sticks. You have every right to be suspicious of that, based upon the number of fantasy books that have tried it and been mostly unsuccessful - The Seeker, The Golden Compass, Narnia, The Spiderwick Chronicles, The Bridge to Terabithia, Eragon(Shudders!), thus the list could go on and on and on. One begins to feel as if the studios are really becoming desperate to attempt to launch something new into the genre thus make more profit from it. I'm sure that's what everyone is thinking about this adaptation of Darren Shan's Cirque du Freak books. It probably doesn't help that the movie features vampires that don't have fangs and seem to have one side not wanting to kill humans and the others do. Believe me, I'm getting tired of this story-line since Twilight. But that's pretty much where the comparisons end here, all the alternative vampires featured in the film definitely have a lust for human blood and the main bad guy, Murlough, actually files his teeth into fangs. This is also not just a story about fighting vampires; Yes, the main conflict in the film is between two groups of the bloodthirsty undead; factually there are many different types of characters that we run into on our way through the film. You've got Patrick Fugit as a snake-boy, Salma Hayek as a bearded lady with psychic powers (and an amazing rack/body I might add!), Tom Woodruff, Jr. as the Wolfman, Orlando Jones as a guy with his skin missing and his ribs exposed, and an extremely evil fellow that seems to play everyone against each other to get what he wants named Mr. Tiny. He seems to have some kind of bizarre magical powers that weren't completely explained. ''College! Job! Family! And one day, if you're really lucky, you'll be standing here yelling at a teenager of your own.'' Just with the names above, you can see that there was no expense spared in pulling together a pretty impressive ensemble cast. Then add to that Willem Dafoe as a rather eccentric acting vampire and a very unexpected John C. Reilly as the freak show vampire Larten Crepsley. Reilly really delivers in the role, being witty and slightly scary in the as Crepsley. He almost veers completely off his normal path of the idiot friend or relative that he has paved for himself by being in Stepbrothers, Talladega Nights, and Walk Hard. The reason I say almost is he still retains a sense of humour, but in a more traditional manner confined to the storytelling. I found Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant to be a pretty enjoyable, and entertaining film. It had a darkly comic, richly sarcastic vibe that many of the films based on these types of books seem to miss out upon. I haven't read the books of this series, but this film definitely seemed to incite me to do so. Will this be one of those times where the film will make enough money for the studio to kick off a new franchise? Who knows. Darren Shan: So do I turn into a bat Larten Crepsley: NO! NO! That is Bullshit. |
November 20, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Twilight - PG-13 |
''And so the lion fell in love with the lamb.'' A teenage girl risks everything when she falls in love with a vampire. Kristen Stewart: Bella Swan After reading so many positive reviews of Twilight from Critics and friends alike, I was more than willing to give the apparently awesome Teen Vampire story a chance. After actually seeing this seemingly appetizing vision I'm somewhat baffled as to what everyone is going on about. Either the critics are on drugs or they have succumbed to the swarms of angst ridden female fans, (and some male supporters) being payed off in the process. It would seem to me that as soon as this so called Twilight, I was bored to tears with it's sloppy narration and poorly structured plot. Having not read the book previously the film has done a thorough job of putting me off reading it. The acting is truly abysmal, for a start, not helping me to take it seriously at all. Pretty boy Robert Pattinson portraying the sulky Edward Cullen, is a pouting, emotionless, pale faced lout whom will have the girls drooling over for his feminine looks. We have him weakly formulating a strange romance with Kristen Stewart as new arrival Bella Swan, who doesn't so much as act but only utilizes her looks and nothing else. I'm actually shocked how critics have been fooled by this disgusting piece of film, and I'm sure a few jobs will be lost when audiences see what a drab, unsophisticated piece of shoddiness this is. Twilight could have been the next best adaptation since Harry Potter but ends up being a cross between Underwold, Buffy & Covenant. If you do go and view this at the cinema, more than likely, the majority will be either A fans of the book, or B girls who after a soppy romantic fix. God knows, after hearing some comments, how people can endure this monstrosity multiple times and not resist the need to systematically vomit or succumb to sleep. It honestly, in the politest way possible is like watching newly used paint on a wall dry. ''I know what you are. You're impossibly fast. And strong. Your skin is pale white, and ice cold. Your eyes change colour, and sometimes you speak like, like you're from a different time. You never eat or drink anything. You don't go out in the sunlight.'' Twilight abuses the Vampire lore in many ways, opting for our sucker friends to have glittery skin in sunlight(More like sweat visually), playing baseball in stormy weather, and also being able to have a reflection in a mirror. All of these and more crash this nightmare into unbelievability and beyond, causing me to lose hope for Vamp films in general. Being a fan of Bram Stokers Dracula and Interview with the Vampire, this Twilight is a wet dream of teenage hormones realized. It's got no class of a sophisticated vampire whatsoever, also lacking a decent nemesis or threat throughout. When a problem is presented in the guise of three evil Vampires, we are too bored to even give a damn about our characters or even what is to transpire next. Granted Twilight isn't a complete catastrophe, it's got some good qualities here and there, that seperate tedium from torture. The music for one seems to be good in places, as is the parts where Bella visits Edward's family. It just takes too long for these to kick in. Before we even get to the juicy segments we are given supposedly romantic encounters between our pair. Their acting and slushy antics are about as frozen as Edward Cullen's facials appear to be. A frosty love that's about as easy to believe, as blooming Freddy Kruger or King Kong materializing before us from a hurricane of misconception. Which in other words is unbelievable, in every formulated way possible. Billy Burke as Charlie Swan also seems to be lost throughout these strange happenings as Bella's mistreated father. Not to mention Native American friends who are brushed aside with Bella's infatuation and dazzling romance with Edward. After seeing this it's fair to say, you will want to grow up fast if this the most imagination they can conjure up on the screen for us. The realism has just sizzled from view and burst abruptly out the window. As for Director Catherine Hardwicke, has she even bothered to read the book? Or watch any Vampire films of late? I'd say she hasn't bothered doing much if this is the best she can give us. Her direction to me, seems to be poorly threaded together, resulting in a rushed, heightened, chaotic jumble of genres that makes me embarrassed to bear witness to. I mean Melissa Rosenberg screenplay is as flimsy as paper in a storm, it seems to move at a slug's pace, while Stephenie Meyer Novel is systematically raped by this on-screen apparition. You could say that I'm not easily impressed but I'm having on by a thread as to what to be impressed by as I come out of this venture. My girlfriend is as confused as I am, as it finishes, and she was the one that wanted to see this. I'm at a crossroad as to what to think. It's nearly Christmas and Twilight seems to be the only film people talk about. Simply put God help us if this is the best we can get. Hopefully in the next few weeks a certain two films will redeem my flattened cinema viewing and give me something better to feast upon. ''Death is peaceful - easy. Life is harder.'' |
November 20, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Megalexandros, O, (Alexander the Great ) - Unrated | November 20, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Le Voyage dans la lune (A Trip to the Moon) - Unrated | November 20, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Liebelei (Flirtation) (Light O'Love) (Playing at Love) - Unrated | November 19, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| La Habanera - Unrated | November 19, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| The Seven Year Itch - Unrated | November 18, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| It's a Wonderful Life - Unrated | November 18, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| M - Unrated |
''I can't help what I do! I can't help it, I can't... '' When the police in a German city are unable to catch a child-murderer, other criminals join in the manhunt. Peter Lorre: Hans Beckert ''I... I can't help myself! I have no control over this, this evil thing inside of me, the fire, the voices, the torment!'' In the world of film, there is certain subject matter that is just too taboo to be explored by mainstream filmmakers. Even now, with Hollywood's shameless predilection for blood, sex, and drugs, some topics are still just too incredulous to address. Movies that contain serious portrayals of homosexual romance, scenes of rape, or strong anti-governmental themes are certainly unusual in Hollywood; but the biggest way to guarantee a permanent shun from most film studios is to make a film regarding child murder. Better yet, why not make the child murderer a sympathetic character whom has no memory of his killing? This is exactly what Fritz Lang did in his phenomenal 1931 feature, M. M was truly ahead of its time, and not simply because of its early use of synchronized sound or the use of voice-over narration which was a groundbreaking new technique at that time. What amazed me most about M was that it featured a character whom when introduced, is utterly despicable. The audience quickly learns of his unforgivable crimes, and although none of the murders are actually shown, they are talked about in grim detail, with the camera often focusing; unbearably on the reactions of the distraught parents as they speak of their children's demise. As the film progresses, however, our perceptions begin to change, and we start to take pity on this man, all the while coming to the realization that the vigilant mob who wants to beat this man to death is no better than the murderer himself. After all, is mercilessly pummeling a defenseless man to death somehow more civil than killing a child? To some, the answer may be yes; but to me, murder cannot be divided into degrees of acceptability like that; it is wrong, no matter who does it or who it is done to, just as the concepts of freedom are extreme resolutes; one cannot be half free or half dead, only one or the other. ''Just you wait, it won't be long. The man in black will soon be here. With his cleaver's blade so true. He'll make mincemeat out of YOU!'' But it goes much deeper than that. Aside from just feeling sympathy for the murderer simply because an entire town wants his head on a stick, you can't help but be affected by his genuinely sorrowful personality. After all, he honestly cannot control what he is doing, and he is just as horrified learning about his crimes, as the parents of the children he kills; perhaps even more so, since the shock of discovering that you are the one responsible for such evil is enough to want to die. His speech at the end, is not only heartfelt and pitiful, but it's thought-provoking as well. A speech comprising of substance rather than length, it provides a great deal of insight into the relatively simple mindset most people have regarding issues like these. Another fascinating quality about M was its constant, almost overwhelming references to angry mobs and vigilante forms of justice. Even before the final chase segment, there are many scenes wherein a dominant force bullies an innocent person or group of people with little or no justification. The scene that sticks out most in my mind is one where a man is beaten down by some nearby pedestrians, simply because he asked a child if she knew the time. The main purpose behind this particular scene is obvious: it serves as a harrowingly realistic portrayal of the dangerous type of hysteria that can infect a highly emotional group of people. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that these types of scenes were probably meant to be sly referendums to the recent existence of the Nazi party in Germany, at the time. Lang seems to be commenting not only on the steadily growing support of the party, but also his disdain for their violent and often extreme dictatorial methods of government and international relations. Obviously, Lang succeeds in hitting a nerve central to the heart of Germany, unsurprisingly the Nazis banned the movie in July 1934. Other reasons crediting to the ban was matters of nationality; the main actor Peter Lorre was Jewish and fled Germany in fear of Nazi persecution shortly after the movie's release. Fritz Lang, who was half Jewish, fled two years later. Contrary to popular rumour, Fritz Lang did not change the title from The Murderers are Among Us to M due to fear of persecution, by the Nazis. He actually changed the title during filming, influenced by the scene where one of the criminals writes the letter on his hand. Lang thought M was a more interesting, more mysterious title. M is a movie that not only forces you to think, but to feel as well. Peter Lorre's portrayal of the murderous antagonist (or is he indeed, the protagonist?) is both frightening and heart-rending, and Fritz Lang's script and direction are both exceptional in execution, it's no wonder Lang has claimed that M was his favourite film of all those he had directed, presumably for it's controversial nature and success in causing timeless debate.M's cinematography marvelous, not only helping to tell its story in a fluid, stylish manner, but also causing the film to have an ominous, unsettling vibe. Fritz Lang's M retains its ability to shock almost 70 years after its conception. Some of the images are unforgettable, the sounds echoes of brilliance, and Lorre gives the performance of his career. Do not be allowed to be swayed or put off by the use of subtitles because you will miss out, this film, this story, is a first rate character study and one of the most profoundly disturbing psycho thrillers ever created. ''This won't bring back our children. We, too, should keep a closer watch on our children.'' |
November 18, 2009 | N/A | |||
| The Elephant Man - PG |
''I am not an elephant! I am not an animal! I am a human being! I am a man!'' A Victorian surgeon rescues a heavily disfigured man who is mistreated while scraping a living as a side-show freak. Behind his monstrous facade, there is revealed a person of intelligence and sensitivity. Anthony Hopkins: Frederick Treves ''My life is full because I know I am loved.'' If one was to turn on David Lynch's The Elephant Man midway through, without knowing what it was, one might be startled at the appearance of the main character. One might even be tempted to make fun of the character. But if one was to watch the film from the beginning, sympathy with John Merrick (John Hurt), The Elephant Man, would be strong enough to deny that the former situation was ever a possibility. Lynch does not allow his audience to glimpse Merrick albeit mask, until his appearance has been built up substantially. When we the audience are at our zenith of anticipation, we see him: no dramatic music, no slow motion; a simple cut and he's there. There he is. And it's not made out to be a spectacular introduction. This is the beauty of Lynch's direction. We are led through our morbid curiosity at the same rate the characters in the film are. We develop alongside them. More specifically, we develop alongside Frederick Treeves, played with an astounding sublimity of emotion by Anthony Hopkins. Next to Treeves we pity Merrick, respect him, pity him again, and then ask ourselves with him, 'is he just a spectacle to me? Am I a bad person?'... Lynch certainly doesn't let us bypass this question easily. Are we bad people for being intrigued or are we good people for pitying? Certainly there is a mix of intrigue and pity with every character who first meets John, and we are not excluded. However, as with almost every character who truly comes to know John and confer with him, we learn to respect him as a human being and not as a spectacle. Nonetheless, this issue never finds close in the film, nor do I feel it ever can be closed in actual life. Hopkin's Treeves is never fully sated in how he feels about this dilemma, and so, neither can we be. ''People are frightened by what they don't understand.'' Technically, The Elephant Man is a beautifully shot piece. In crisp black and white, the film recalls the cinematic technique of American cinema circa the 1930s. The scenes dissolve into one another; there is no brisk editing. The lighting is kept low-key during dark scenes, balanced during daytime scenes-this is standard film-making of the era. The one digression from this form are the distinctly Lynchian surrealities-pseudo-dream-sequences of commendably original imagery that break up the film and serve as distinct mood-setters for the audience. These are, for the most part, fairly intimidating side-notes. We as an audience are caught off-guard because in these tangents we are not identifying with Treeves, we are put instead into Merrick's shoes. It is unsettling. But Lynch has never been a director to flinch at unsettling prospects. We must watch Merrick beaten, abused, harassed, humiliated, and tormented. We may feel a surge of happiness when he finally stands up for himself, but by that point we still have to cope with what we've already, what he's already, experienced. I suppose that is the greatest and most devastating aspect of the film-empathy. Every moment is heartbreaking. Yet no matter how hard it gets, and how much better it then turns, there is always the threat of another jab. And those jabs only get more and more painful. The Elephant Man is a perfect film. It is sorrowful but it doesn't apologize for what it is. It is a film about where our empathy stems from, a film that asks you to feel sorry for it's victim but rebukes you for your blind pity. It asks you to respect Merrick, not cry for him, alas you cry anyway. The Elephant Man is a film that treks you through despair and asks for your hope in the end. It asks you to hate humanity but to love the humane. It asks you to look at a man who appears sad and know that inside, he's righteous, he has a soul. ''Never. Oh, never. Nothing will die. The stream flows, the wind blows, the cloud fleets, the heart beats. Nothing will die.'' |
November 17, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Terminator 2: Judgment Day - R |
''3 billion human lives ended on August 29th, 1997. The survivors of the nuclear fire called the war Judgment Day. They lived only to face a new nightmare: the war against the machines. The computer which controlled the machines, Skynet, sent two Terminators back through time.'' The cyborg who once tried to kill Sarah Connor must now protect her teenager son, John Connor, from an even more powerful and advanced cyborg. Arnold Schwarzenegger: The Terminator ''Hasta la vista, baby.'' The first Terminator project was a modest success at the box office in 1984; by 1990, millions of people were anxious for a sequel. James Cameron granted their wish and again exceeded expectations with his effort. The sequel is 10 years later, based upon the age of the central character (played by newcomer Ed Furlong from American History X). Cameron was provided with a budget exceeding the original picture a hundred fold over, and used this to his advantage. Notably, this was an early use of computer FX which are prevalent today; back then, they were simply amazing to behold (this was before even Jurassic Park, and each instance of their use was mind blowing). Most of the best examples of effects used in T2, revolved around the T-1000 super-villain (Robert Patrick), a revolutionary approach to depicting a fantastic menace. Arnold was back as another durable cyborg, a multi-layered hero this time, the big man was on the side of good. The film was another impressive progression of action and suspense, interlocked with the theme of nuclear holocaust. More than just building on the threat of nuclear annihilation from the 1st pic, the picture throws the concept at the audience with some striking images. It slows at about the halfway point when the heroes evade the pursuing super-killer for a time, but then you see that nuclear bomb going off, still about the best such depiction ever seen. Just when you think you can relax for a few minutes, a city blows up. By this time, the definitive version of this film is the extended cut Cameron presented a couple of years later. The extra scenes accentuate the plot and elaborate the story wonders, not that they needed it, but it's a nice little dessert for fans. ''I need your clothes, boots and your motorcycle.'' Like all the best sequels, it presents characters which progress and advance. This is especially true of Linda Hamilton's character; she's really lived those past 10 years and is a much older, much stronger mother figure here, moulded by ceaseless struggle. She really does turn out to be the mother of the future, as mentioned in the original Terminator, obsessed with saving us all from a nuclear Armageddon. Arnold, of course, has to play a more human-like, more understanding cyborg, very different from the mono-syllabic droid he interpreted in the previous installment. The film pulls another fast one in the beginning, still keeping the audience guessing as to which is the heroic protector, Arnold or the T-1000(the T-1000 actually seems more human than Arnold in the first segment). When the hero turns out to be Arnold, the viewer claps in appreciation for a fine role reversal. We had to wait another dozen years for the next one, but it could never match this baby. Overall, Terminator 2: Judgement Day is not like other typical actioners, which are usually mindless, moronic and are little more than an excuse to eat snacks and put on in the background as mindless accompaniment. Instead, it's got depth, emotion, character and is highly memorable, and keeps you glued to the screen throughout; as well as boasting some astounding action and suspense while flaunting state of the art effects at the time, which still look good to this day. T2 is quite possibly the best action film and a unrivaled sequel, in existence, and I'm predicting that it will hold that honour for all time...Lastly, just picture this; Patrick Patrick running; his arms going up and down; his hands straight; that droning, mesmerizing sound of toned dread pounding in the background. This is a thrilling, timeless piece of action/thriller art which squeezes at your heart strings. Just writing about T2 makes me want to watch it again, then melt everytime...and hear those iconic lines...Arnie will be back! and thus viewers will be back for repeated viewings everytime. ''The future's not set. There's no fate but what we make for ourselves.'' |
November 17, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Casablanca - Unrated |
''Kiss me. Kiss me as if it were the last time.'' Set in unoccupied Africa during the early days of World War II: An American expatriate meets a former lover, with unforeseen complications. Humphrey Bogart: Rick Blaine Casablanca, what other film can evoke such powerful feelings of nostalgia, can exemplify so completely the golden period of Hollywood film-making? The year was 1942, and the world found itself in the midst of the bloodiest conflict in modern history. Unlike anything our generation could possibly imagine, citizens were faced with an incredible uncertainty about their future. The Nazis marched across Europe, an astonishing, seemingly-unstoppable enemy, and the United States watched with bated breath from across the Atlantic. Most Hollywood productions responded to such ambiguity with fully-fledged, unabashed patriotism, and war-time filmmakers became obsessed with validating audiences' beliefs that the Allied forces would inevitably win out against Germany, and, indeed, many often concluded their pictures with unnecessary epilogues in which we've apparently already won. Such propaganda, while no doubt ensuring commercial success from war-weary cinema-goers, has regularly tarnished and outdated even the most otherwise impressive contemporary WWII pictures, as the directors' willingness to simulate a happy ending strikes distinctly false from an era in which the overwhelming atmosphere was that of uncertainty and insecurity(see Billy Wilder's Five Graves to Cairo(1943). ''Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine.'' This is not to say that Casablanca(1942) is not a work of American patriotism; indeed, it might just be the greatest example. The film owes its enduring legacy to how seamlessly director Michael Curtiz, and his troupe of writers and actors, was able to encapsulate the sentiment of the time in which the picture was made. The story ends with Rick and Renault strolling resolutely into the thick mist, their futures obscured by the fog of uncertainty that hovers before their faces. What will the next few turbulent years have in store for these heroes? Will they be overwhelmed by the enemy, or continue their noble fight for freedom? Following Operation Torch, the 1942 Allied invasion of North Africa, there were plans to film one of those dreaded propagandistic epilogues, showing Rick, Renault and a detachment of Free French soldiers on a ship. Owing to Claude Rains' fortuitous unavailability for filming, the original ending was left intact, and producer David O. Selznick was never more correct than when he concluded "it would be a terrible mistake to change the ending." When Casablanca was first conceived, the filmmakers apparently had little idea they were about to produce one of cinema's best-loved pictures. A prime example of the studio-bound exotica that was popular at the time, and obviously a war-time off-shoot of Howard Hawks' Colombian aviation adventure Only Angels Have Wings(1939), perhaps also John Cromwell's Algiers(1938), which I unfortunately haven't seen. The film reproduced the stuffy, humid climate and seedy, corrupt personalities of Morocco on the Warner Bros. sets, which ironically communicate more romantic charm than the real location could ever have provided. The film was shot by veteran cinematographer Arthur Edeson, who had previously worked on the wonderfully-atmospheric All Quiet on the Western Front(1930), Frankenstein(1931) and The Maltese Falcon(1941). His perfectly-framed photography suggests a mixture of stuffy melodrama, glamorous adventure and shadowy noir, though, interestingly, he avoids the sordidness of the latter style's successors, despite the wealth of suitably-seedy characters to be found in Casablanca. Framed through Edeson's lens, it seems that even the most squalid and repulsive of personalities can take on a curious facade of nobility. ''I love you so much. I hate war so much.'' No less than six people had a hand in the film's justly-celebrated screenplay. The story was based on a then unproduced play by Murray Burnett and Joan Alison, ''Everybody Comes to Rick's'', and was adapted for the screen by Julius and Philip Epstein and Howard Koch, with uncredited input by Casey Robinson. The Epstein twins were initially keen to give the film a few comedic elements; this would, no doubt, have made for entertaining viewing, not unlike a Howard Hawks picture, but might have detracted from the story's core themes of love, loyalty, regret, moral responsibility and self-sacrifice. Koch had perhaps a clearer understanding of the director's preferences from another wonderful film from Curtiz, Angels with Dirty Faces(1938), also poses a vital moral dilemma, and chose to focus largely on the politics and melodrama of Burnett and Alison's play. That so many conflicting artistic ideas somehow melded together, not only into a cohesive narrative, but also into history's greatest screenplay, is a miracle to be credited only to the cinema gods, particularly in view of the fact that Curtiz commenced filming with an incomplete script that was updated daily. Perhaps another possible explanation for the film's unlikely legacy lies with the distinguished cast, borrowed from all over Europe. Humphrey Bogart, Dooley Wilson and Joy Page were the sole American imports, and assorted supporting talents were plundered from the United Kingdom (Claude Rains, Sydney Greenstreet), Sweden (Ingrid Bergman), Austria (Paul Henreid), Hungary (Peter Lorre) and even Germany (Conrad Veidt). Bogart, who had been typecast throughout the 1930s as a lowlife gangster, had been given the opportunity to show some humanity in Raoul Walsh' film noir High Sierra(1941), but it was Casablanca that proved his first genuinely romantic role, and, with several notable exceptions, the remainder of his acting career would comprise of similarly-noble yet flawed heroes. Bergman, despite having a rather passive role, was never more enchanting than as Ilsa Lund, and, photographed with a softening gauze filter and catch lights, positively sparkles with gentle compassion and a tragic sadness. Perhaps it's just the romantic in me, but Casablanca represents one of Hollywood's most unforgettable accomplishments. Even as the film draws to a majestic close, and two men forge a lifelong friendship in the fog-ridden uncertainty of War, we immediately feel like asking Sam to play it again...just for old time's sake. ''I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.'' |
November 14, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Léon (The Professional) - R |
''Revenge is not good. Once you're done. Believe me.'' Professional assassin Leon reluctantly takes care of 12-year-old Mathilda, a neighbor whose parents are killed, and teaches her his trade. Jean Reno: Léon From the opening musical score, which is phenomenal throughout the entire piece, Luc Besson gives us one of the most stylish Character introductions seen to date. The Cinematography is outstanding as the camera focuses on Leon (Jean Reno) and his Italian Mob friend (Danny Aiello), with subtle shots that pan onto his dark sunglasses or the glass of milk he's drinking (which actually becomes a running theme for the film). Almost as soon as we are introduced to the seemingly cold, calculating Leon, the heat is on and we discover that he is unstoppable, untouchable and lethal as a professional hitman. The way in which he displays his expertise, is visually spectacular as he picks off targets like flies one by one, appealing to all fans of action, gore and suspense. It is also gripping to see Leon hunt down the last remaining 'client', making the vulnerable man sweat with fear and me be riveted to my seat in anticipation. As the gloriously original plot continues, Leon rescues a 12 year old girl named Mathilda (Natalie Portman) from imminent death, which begins an awe inspiring relationship between the two. It's very rare to see such impressive characterization, and Besson manages to reveal the warmer, caring side to Leon, without clouding the believability of a ruthless and fearless killer. Without sounding too sentimental, it has to be said that their relationship and love for each other is beautifully realized, and is always accompanied by the captivating score. ''I haven't got time for this Mickey Mouse bullshit.'' Apart from the skilled and apparent capability of Reno, Portman's portrayal of Mathilda really is astonishingly authentic, albeit the stars of Leon: The Professional are obvious but without Gary Oldman's performance, the film would have lacked the depth and tension that is so essential to the story. Oldman plays a crooked, psychopathic Drug Enforcement Agent named Stansfield, with a penchant and liking for classical composers such as Beethoven and Mozart. Stansfield is significantly agitated by Leon's diligent trail of death and destruction. The scenes in which his anxiety pushes to the extreme, commands your attention, this is a crazed villain who wants blood at any cost, and he wants this problem in the guise of Leon to disappear. It is a meritorious accomplishment for a film of this genre to have such a rich plot and character development. The transition of Leon, devoid of any feelings, to him embracing Mathilda's affections is a paramount example. There is a strong universal appeal to all movie-lovers for this extraordinary film and it is totally justified. I personally found it a delight to watch and I'm sure a classic for repeated viewings. Leon: Revenge is not a good thing, it's better to forget. Mathilda: Forget? After I've seen the outline of my brother's body on the floor, you expect me to forget? I wanna kill those sons of bitches, and blow their fucking heads off! In "The making of The Professional", Besson says "If I imagine somebody in the street try to knock on my daughter, I kill the guy, in five seconds. I kill him, and I think "It's in me, I'm a beast!". On this part we can't forget that a part of us, the genetic things inside are much, much older than The Ten Commandments". He certainly uses visceral scenes to create very strong emotion in the movie - the blood running from Mathilda's nose or Stansfield's unforgettable "EVERYONE!" are just a couple of examples. The music and the sound are excellent and are used in a masterly fashion - you can hear Fatman's heart beating desperately or a low claustrophobic sound when Stansfield turns to look at Mathilda's father. This stark portrayal of humanity and inhumanity is produced with the style and finesse that one expects from Luc Besson. In addition, the combined talents of Jean Reno, Natalie Portman and Gary Oldman provide not only an unmatched on-screen chemistry, but also three perfectly created characters, the like of which are rarely seen in today's cinema. This film has my personal recommendation of being one of the best practitioners of action and platonic examples of love, of the day. I have not seen anything that matches it in terms of intensity or emotion for a story of it's type, it really succeeds in being unique and indulging. I found myself caring for the characters involved, an unique experience in itself. This is not the type of film for an uncaring, boisterous audience, but nevertheless, it is an unforgettable piece of cinematic history. [after the building explodes] ''Hey, what the fuck is going on up there? I said take the guy out, not the whole fucking building!'' |
November 14, 2009 | N/A |
5964 ratings
5692 reviews
