| Movie | Rating | Review | Date | Your Rating | Match | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frost/Nixon - R |
"Frost/Nixon" always looked to be one of the heavy weights when it came to this year's oscar season. It's a historical, non-fiction film about a very controverisal and interesting man. That added together pretty much equals oscar contender, but nothing is ever guaranted. Well the film probably isn't as compelling or engaging as it could've been, but it certainly gives you insight about a man who has been constantly demonized for over 30 years now and one of the most universally hated Presidents in the history of the United States. Ron Howard is one of the biggest names in Hollywood when it comes to directors. He's made many of the most mainstream, and biggest oscar contenders over the past decade. "Frost/Nixon" will likely be something of a hit. It only cost 25 million to make, likely because there are no big stars, only familiar faces cast in all the roles in the film, and Howard probably didn't take anything close to whatever salary he normally would get in order to bring this film to the screen. He does a pretty good job, but I felt like he didn't move the film along all that well. The slightly modernistic style works for the most part, and there's really no part of the film that was noticeably bad or out of place, but it doensn't quite come completely together. This is a very good film, but it seems like a great film that was held back in some way. There's something missing, and I believe it's possible that a less mainstream director may have added that missing ingredient. Someone like Aronofsky or Fincher might've been able to add that little extra darkness the film might've needed to get that extra push into the realm of true greatness. Howard does a respectable job and he will no doubt receive some nominations for his work this upcoming winter. If he gets left out of the Academy Awards in the Best Director category though, I won't be surprised. The acting is really where the film seems to be translated very well. Frank Langella's portrayl of Nixon is perhaps one of the best performances of the year and will almost certainly be nominated in the category of Best Actor. He does a great job of really nailing down Nixon's mannerisms as well as bringing many likeable and human aspects out of his character. Make no mistake, "Frost/Nixon" makes the man out to be a pretty likeable guy. He's not shown as some monster, he's just a confused and overly confident man who happened to become our president. If he never was our president he probably would've been a likeable and stereotypical funny old grandpa who had a sharp whit and conservative values. Unfortunately after abusing his position of power he ends up being a very tragic human being who truly seems to feel as though his life has always been a big second rate let down. Michael Sheen does a good job as British playboy and popular talkshow host, David Frost. He's put everything he has, basically his entire career on the line, just to do the Nixon interviews. Other than that he really isn't as fleshed out as Nixon is, even though most of the film takes place from his point of view. Nixon does most of the talking, and almost anything interesting that is said is said by him. Frost is kind of just the straight man, and because of this I doubt that Sheen will be up for an Oscar. Perhaps some other awards ceremonies will honor him if "Frost/Nixon" becomes an awards favorite as so many films have in the past. The next most noticeable actor in the film is certainly Sam Rockwell. Rockwell does a great job of playing a very passionate and angry American author who's an expert on Nixon and his deceptive tactics. He absolutely wants to make sure that Nixon admits his wrong doings and appologizes to the public for them. Oliver Platt isn't as noticeable as Rockwell, but the two work together pretty darn well. Without Langella as Nixon I don't know where this movie would've gone. He's really the centerpiece and the only part of the film that made it likeable at all. He's a better Nixon than even the accomplished Anthony Hopkins, and he looks more like Nixon too. The script comes right off the page pretty well. I felt as though it could've been paced a little better, but Nixon is fleshed out quite well and the audience is let in on a lot of information that really humanizes the man and doesn't make him out to be a deceiving heartless bad guy. He isn't a bad guy, he's just a guy that should've stuck to being a lawyer and not gone into politics. As his political career firmly comes to a close in the mans mind at the end of the film, it's clear that he also has this realization. Politics was not the career for him, and it's interesting to see how much Nixon felt he had to prove to everyone, which seems to be the only real reason he ever ran for office at all. As I previously mentioned David Frost is really the straightman of the story, and while he's important to the story he's not nearly as fleshed out as Nixon is. He's not the main attraction. The script is adapted from the stage pretty well, but there were many moments, especially at the beginning where the dialogue felt a little overly theaterlike. The best parts of the film come in the interviews which is really where Ron Howard got to shine. He did a great job with those scenes because they were basically just taken straight from real life and slapped right onto the page. They are paced well, and they really are the only entertaining parts of the film. I found myself getting bored and maybe even a little tired for short periods of time as I watched "Frost/Nixon". That's really my main complaint. With a character as interesting as Richard M. Nixon, I shouldn't have been bored for a second. It isn't my attention span that's at fault. I love long movies, this film just wasn't compelling enough in some scenes to hold my interest through it's entirity as so many great films do. "Frost/Nixon" is a very good film, but it is not a great film. Frank Langella deserves a nomination for his brilliant performance as Richard Nixon, but other than that I don't see much to write home about here. Other films like "Slumdog Millionaire" and "Milk" were more interesting, engaging, and compelling through their entire running lengths, and both are actually a little longer than "Frost/Nixon". The frustrating thing is that I know that just a few additions and maybe a few cuts might've made this an absolute classic. This is no "JFK", it's much closer to "Thirteen Days". I feel that it is a solid, well done movie, that will only live on because of it's historically important subject matter, not because of all that and it was a downright masterpiece too. 8/10 |
December 8, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Milk - R |
Since "Milk" first started getting a little buzz this past summer as it was shown in a few "Fall Movie Preview" article's in various entertainment magazine's caught my attention with Penn in the lead role and Van Sant directing. I didn't quite know what it was about, but when I saw a trailer had arrived I made sure to go ahead and watch it. When I did I could tell it was going to be one of the best movies this Oscar season and it did not dissapoint in that respect at all. Gus Van Sant probably had his most loved film when "Good Will Hunting" came out, which launched the careers of Matt Damon and Ben Affleck with their brilliant, oscar winning screenplay, and their solid portrayls of the main characters in the film. While I don't see all that much similarity in the actual style of the filmmaking between the two movies, you can see many similarities in the way his character's are handled. Many moments in both films are shown and told with a great amount of realism. While both stories could've been very cheesy and corny, Van Sant somehow makes any of that possible corniness believable and likeable at the same time. At least, believable enough to stay connected to the story being told by the film. I can say that this is Van Sant's return to form. It's his best film since "Good Will Hunting" and it will almost certainly earn him an oscar nomination for his direction. He directs it tenderly and tells his story very effectively. I saw this as a fairly honest bio-pic about a man that really believed in something and helped to bring our conservative country closer to tolerance of the gay community (which we obviously still have not reached). This film can also easily be compared to "Elephant", which was a fictional story done in a realistic fashion about a Columbine like school shooting. This is because a decent portion of "Milk" centers on Dan White's downward spiral into finally bottoming out. His character arch is handled well, and it's entirely predictable and believable that he would've done what he did just looking at the events in the film. This is a great example of a part of the film where the real events are translated very well. As I previously mentioned Sean Penn takes the title role of Harvey Milk. Harvey is a very smart businessman and entrepreneur who knows how to turn situations around to be in his favor. His character finally starts living his life for real, and he really accomplishes some great things. Harvey Milk is a man that celebrated life. Penn does a great job and handles the character with much care. You can tell Penn spent a lot of time getting all of the mannerisms close to exact as well as getting comfortable kissing various men of the same sex. I'm sure he was not used to doing this, and he has to do it many times throughout this film. Penn has always been an oscar favorite so it's very believable, if not realistic, to think that Penn will, at the very least, be on the ballot for the 5th time come this February. I think he has a shot at winning his second academy award. Josh Brolin plays the tragic character of Dan White with the proper amount of brutish mannerisms. He doesn't really understand the world around him, constantly not knowing how to handle different situations. His disconnect is unfortunate, but Brolin plays the character believably. If he gets nominated for Best Supporting Actor for this film, he's the most worthy out of all the supporting cast. Emile Hirsch does a decent job as Harvey's enthusiastic event coordinator, Cleve Jones. He knows how to get people to come in droves to one place. I don't really know why he's been getting some oscar buzz for this role. I think if anything Brolin and Franco play more interesting characters than he does. Still a solid performance. James Franco plays Harvey's boyfriend for much of the film, Scott Smith. He is Harvey's true love through the movie's entirity. From the time Harvey meets him, at the beginning, to the time of his imminent death (that you are aware of within the first 5 minutes of the opening title's). Diego Luna does a good job and believably portrays one of Harvey's flings that he has as he's getting elected and while he's in office. He reminded me most of an absolutely insane, high maintenence girl friend, just applied to an effeminate latino man. The one thing I thought was so unbelievably interesting was the film's absolute relevance to right now. It's as if the filmmakers knew that prop 8 wasn't going to pass, or even that it was going to be on the ballot back when the film was first put into production. There's a large portion of the film devoted to making sure a proposition that would've revoked many rights from gay's across the state of California, prop 6 in 1978, didn't pass. It was really fascinating to see that the opposition to gay rights was using the same illogical, non-sensical arguments then as they're constantly making now. The disconnect and the void of fear between the fundamentalist christian community and the gay community is illustrated poignantly and accurately in "Milk". The comparisons between "Milk" and "Brokeback Mountain" are inevitable and unavoidable. Both films got large amounts of Oscar buzz for their respective years, had high profile casts, and were of coruse large productions about the gay community (not to mention they were both distributed by Universal's indie label, one of the few that continues to be successful, Focus Features). However they are quite different at heart. "Brokeback Mountain" was an aggressive, rugged, and controversial film about forbidden love, and people afraid of being themselves in order to follow societal conventions. "Milk" is first off non-fiction, and secondly it really is a more tenderly handled film about the gay community that shows a lot of affection rather than raw aggression. While this is obviously a controversial film that is an important additon in the art field to the gay community, it really serves it's purpose as a good bio-pic in it's own right. It has a very well constructed and focused screenplay, effective direction, and a fantastic ensemble cast. "Milk" is one of the very finest films this year, and with the talent it had pushing it along this is entirely logical, if not expected. The subject matter is not only controversial and relevant, but extremely important as well. It will likely be up for Best Original Screenplay, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor (for one of the supporting roles), Best Director, and Best Picture. All of the character's in the film seem very believable and human. Even the "bad guys" are handled with care, as the film is very cautious not to demonize anyone, just as it seemed "Milk" never truly hated anyone. He, like the audience, was angry at people simply because they used their influence to make comments that were uninformed and, in most cases, completely ridiculous. Rather than wanting to kill these hateful bigots as many of the bigots no doubt wanted to kill him, Harvey Milk seemed to take pity on them, and always tried to empathize, and understand exactly why they never took the time to truly understand him, and why they were really so afraid of homosexuality. This film serves it's purpose of promoting equality and tolerance well, and it manages to stand alone as an entertaining and insightful look into the recent past to learn lessons that can help us be a better country in the present. 9.5/10 |
December 7, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Dogma - R |
Now that I own this on DVD and have seen it several times I can say that Kevin Smith is a guy that makes some of the very most rewatchable films of all time. He writes in such a way that seems to make things just as enjoyable each time around. His cheesy jokes are never self serious, and are particularly applicable here with his satire of the catholic church, "Dogma". One of the most controversial movies ever at the time it was released. It was protested by many Catholics the world over simply because of it's satirical take on the religion. While it does poke fun at the religion, any Catholic who is worried about being offended will likely not have to worry much at all. The movie does not take itself seriously, and most of those people who protested likely would have stopped had they actually gone out and seen it. It reaffirms god as the almighty and basically makes it very clear who the bad guys are and who the good guys are. It's not like the movie has the devil butt raping Jesus while Jay and Silent Bob laugh on the side lines. Nothing even close to that insanely over the line appears onscreen at any point. That's basically just my way of making sure anyone who always just kind of discredited this as offensive smut because you're of catholic faith, you should probably see the movie before you say this. The style is over the top, but also straightforward. It's not kill bill, but don't expect to see death taken seriously. Smith's style doesn't get him very far, it's his writing that really does the trick, and it, for the most part, makes almost all of his movie's, that are so beloved by many younger males, so enjoyable and fun. The screenplay for this film is absolutely hilarious. Smith manages to create his own little world using Catholicism as his backdrop, but he constantly pokes fun at both the church and modern American values. The fantastic ideas Smith has about angels and god, and some of the randomness of it as well (Alanis Morisette... nough' said) makes for a very enjoyable ride for the entirety of the film. No one can deny the other strength of many of Smith's films is the casting. He manages to get, what is likely the best cast of his career in film making in "Dogma". With his regular's like Jason Mewes showing up along with himself, but also Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Salma Hayek, Chris Rock, Jason Lee, Alan Rickman, and many more star as various religious figures in the expansive list of characters that have small and large parts in the film. Damon, Affleck, and Lee no doubt being the funniest and most interesting of the film because they're all the bad guys, meaning demons. They're perfectly cast, and deliver many of their ludicrously dark lines with the perfect intensity or lack thereof, depending upon which is needed. Lee is much more on the stupid side of the acting spectrum, while Damon and Affleck both act like straight men throughout almost the whole film. There are a few flaws in some areas. The movie is not totally amazing the entire time and is by no means completely perfect. Some people will find it overly cheesy or corny, despite the fact that it's all totally intentional. Others might just not be able to get past Smith's fairly graphic language, and his fearlessness from a content stand point. He did not set out to offend people with this film, but if you are extremely serious about your religion, and you are catholic then maybe this will offend you a little, but the overall message of the film is certainly more of a, as Smith himself calls it "Love letter to God". Obviously not a stereotypical one, but from the mind of the oddly brilliant writer/director Kevin Smith. This is a very solid movie that I can watch over and over again. You'll certainly appreciate the film if you like Smith and his writing style, or if you like most of the actor's listed above. If you're a devout catholic and are extremely sensitive to a little fun being poked at your religion then I suppose this movie may be a little offensive to you, but otherwise this should be a non-issue. Overall, this is a very funny film that's worth seeing if you're in the mood to laugh at the value structure of the USA. 8.5/10 |
November 23, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Bolt - PG |
"Bolt" will naturally be competing for the #1 spot next weekend with teenybopper favorite, "Twilight" and rightfully so. It's had a solid marketing campaign, and it has the same wide appeal as other films like Madagascar 2, just without the sequel pull. The trailer and the concept are fairly clever and show much of what is to like about the film, but it's the execution that truly matters. The direction is fairly typical for this sort of film, but still quite solid. It has a fair amount of laugh out loud moments, most involving quirky characters like the adventurous hamster, Rhino, and the two cat actors also are quite funny near the beginning of the film. The first twenty minutes have an "Incredibles" like edge that is lacking through the rest of the film. This is of course because during the first twenty minutes we are inside the TV show, which is what Bolt thinks is real, but it is not truly reality. The parody of hollywood is quite funny and I'd say the films best moments lie in its first 30 minutes or so. The direction isn't really the issue there though as it stays pretty solid throughout the film. It's only corny when it seems fairly necessary in a family film like this, and it tries fairly hard to appeal to not only 5 year olds on a sugar high like other more amateur CG family films have been done lately. I think this shows Disney Animation Studios potential as its own separate entity, totally apart from the brilliant minds at Pixar who seem to put out the absolute best family films every year. If the Disney team keeps this up Buena Vista should have at least a couple animated films a year that will both satisfy a large audience. The acting is probably one of the film's major strong points. While Travolta is as straightforward as you'd expect as the loyal dog and TV star Bolt, the supporting cast is where the acting really shines though. I'm not talking about Miley Cyrus who gives a passable, but an expectedly needy and fairly personalityless portrayal as the teen actress who stars in the TV show along side her faithful dog Bolt. I'm talking about the other people. All the voice actors who played the pigeons, which were really a very funny running theme, despite the fact that it was all kind of cliche. They were pretty hysterical, particularly in New York and LA. Penny's (Miley Cyrus) agent is also played expertly by Greg Germann who gives a fairly stereotypical, but a satirical performance. He's basically the cleaned up Ari Gold, with a little extra 1950's optimism thrown into the mix. The hamster, played by Mark Walton is also one of the highlights of the film for me. The animators did a great job making him look ridiculous and funny, but he does a great job portraying all that silliness in his voice acting. The best acting and really the best and most interesting character ultimately ends up being the stray cat, Mittens, played by Susie Essman from "Curb Your Enthusiasm". Her New Yorker cat character is both sarcastic and rather touching at some moments. She's a layered character, and in my opinion she makes Bolt's dog personality much less appealing. Many of the best and most compelling parts of the film come in exchanges with her. The writing is where I take most issue with the film. The concept is clever and fairly original, it showed a lot of promise early on. As I previously mentioned the first 30 or so minutes are the best part of the film. That's only because it seems to kind of fall into a trap of family movies cliche's. The dog falls into a box and gets shipped across the country to a strange place. He befriends other animals who he can talk to and embarks on a cross country trek to get to his "person" because he is of course a loyal dog. They are later caught by an animal patrol catcher who takes them back to the pound. The list of animal movie cliche's goes on... I probably could have guessed all of that going into the movie really. It's just not very creative to kind of cut and paste events from other movies and apply the new characters to it. These are not the only examples of this, but it's enough to give you an idea of Bolt's major weak point. It also simply seems to meander in the center part of the film. The characters jump out of a moving vehicle one to many times or something. It doesn't seem to quite know what to do with itself right around the mid point of the movie. However the writing is mostly passable and at times the dialogue is fairly clever so most of this can easily be forgiven by someone who's younger, and for the most part forgiven by parents going out to have a laugh with the whole family. Bolt is in 3-D in select theaters, but nothing really jumped out at me about the 3-D presentation. Quite literally. It's not interactive like many are, generally its bad when they're too interactive, but I also didn't really see the point in it being 3-D other than the fact that it's a marketing ploy these days. I'd say if you have the option of spending an extra 2 dollars a ticket for 3-D (I think it really might be more because often they don't allow you to buy kids tickets so you end up buying everyone adult tickets plus 2 dollars) or skipping it and seeing the film in a regular 2-D presentation I'd say you aren't losing much by saving your money and going for the traditional approach. "Bolt" is a solid family film that's quite likable, and totally appropriate for everyone in the family. It's flaws will be annoying for some adults, however children will undoubtedly take no notice, and I'm sure all kids will love the film and want a Bolt stuffed animal as it's end credits arise. It's got plenty of reasons for people of all ages to go, but it's certainly not totally perfect. I guarantee that most of you will like it more than I did, and I thought it was pretty good. 6.5/10 |
November 23, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Quantum of Solace - PG-13 |
"Quantum of Solace" is likely the most anticipated Bond film in decades. "Casino Royale" had some people excited because of the new crew that had stepped in to try and save the series from possible extinction because of the past few Bond's lacking a lot of the quality standards older Bond's seemed to have. "Royale" did not dissapoint, in fact it totally reinvented the franchise and really ended up being one of a few great Bond films. It only gained popularity on DVD after that and it's had about two years now to build an excited fan base. From the opening weekend tally on "Quantum of Solace" being the highest in Bond history by about 23 million dollars I think it did that very successfully. Does it live up to the hype and excitement? Probably not, but for me it got pretty d**n close. The direction in "Quantum of Solace" is it's major strong point. It's paced very quickly which was probably not it's major flaw this time around. "Royale" was a much slower film and that worked too, but this Bond is taking a whole new approach. The last film's Achilles heal was really it's fairly lame action sequences. The poker scene and the writing were exhilarating and clever, but the action was lacking and stereotypical. This film's action is very precise and controlled, yet it ends up being extremely exciting, and it mirrors the Bourne series, which was kind of trying to be a modern realistic version of Bond anyway. While I really did miss the classic Bond wit and charm this vengeful Bond works too, but it probably would've been a better film had they added a dash of Bourne, but still kept all the Bond charm as well. The director, Marc Forster, is obviously extremely versatile and really reminds me of Danny Boyle in the way that he can go from a very adult film, to a children's film, to a quirky comedy, to a fast paced and brutal action film and make all of them good. He has had a few rough films in his career though, such as "Stay". He still does a great job of making this a very exciting action film, but if it was him that took this franchise in the new direction I didn't really see it as all that necessary. I would've really rather seen the new and intense action applied to a film that mirrored "Casino Royale" more closely. The acting is one of the film's other major strong points. Judi Dench is always fantastic and this is no exception. She does a great job in her motherly supporting role as "M", Bond's superior. Bond girl, Olga Kurylenko does a good job as her very serious and damaged character, "Camille". She never actually gets together with Bond in that oh so formal way all Bond girls have in the past. It was also fun to see all the great character actors like Jeffrey Wright and Giancarlo Giannini pop up now and again for different bits of time. Daniel Craig, whether or not you like his hair and eye color, encompasses the Bond character with a perfect amount of confidence and likeability to be one of the very best Bond's that the series has ever seen. He is only challanged by Sean Connery and with a few more films I could see Craig being widely considered better than Connery. Mathieu Amalric was the absolute highlight of the film for me. One of the best ways to describe him is to call him a french Al Pacino. He's exhilarating to watch and perfectly despicable as the newest in a long line of hateable Bond villains, and I can't want to see him in more United States made films. He's truly a great and versatile actor. The writing throughout the film is not bad, it's just not as good as "Casino Royale". I don't really understand why Paul Haggis decided to take the film in such a different direction after having such great critical and commercial success with "Casino Royale" which really embraced the Bond character and all of the series' charms. It was witty and clever throughout, but now this new film is not even close to the same. It's occasionally witty, but mostly dark and brutal. It's a very violent film for a PG-13 and probably is only rivaled in intensity by "The Dark Knight" for action films period this year. It's very exciting and entertaining, and the action sequences are well structured, and for the most part very original, but I still was really wondering why all of the Bond charms were erased from the film. What's the matter with Bond having fun with the Bond girl? I didn't see the point in taking that out. Everyone loves the character and most of the series trademark lines. If it ain't broke why is it being fixed? I don't see the point in doing that. "Quantum of Solace" is still a very good action film in it's own right and probably would've been a hit if it had a new spy character and was not part of the franchise. Most of the opposition has come from big fans of the series that it has been taken in such a different direction. Had this been an entirely new film starring Will Smith or someone of the sort reviews would've been much more positive, and it probably would've started a whole new franchise. So if you see it I would urge you to really watch it to be entertained and don't go in expecting a true Bond experience. For the next film I can say I hope all the trademarks come back, but the new found intensity and grit should stay as well. Why not bring in the new and hold onto the old too? 7.5/10 |
November 23, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Slumdog Millionaire - R |
Nothing about "Slumdog Millionaire" seemed all that interesting. The plot is very odd, centering around the true story of a very poor boy who had no education somehow winning a game show through knowledge from his past experiences. It doesn't sound bad, but it sounds cheesy to a certain extent. The trailer made it seem a bit over dramatic and it was not all that intriguing. The only thing that truly got me out to the theater were the reviews and the buzz heading into its release and man am I glad I listened to that. "Slumdog Millionaire" is one of the very finest films to be released this year and I could see it up for many awards come this years oscars. Danny Boyle has directed so many genres and has done so well with all of them that I can confidently say that he just flat out knows how to direct movies. His style doesn't change, but his ability to tell a story doesn't either. It all comes together very well for "Slumdog Millionaire" which is probably one of the toughest positive films in years. It's absolutely incredible the struggles the characters face in the film, and Boyle transfers all of these real life events and cultural factors onto the screen quite poetically and beautifully. It doesn't end up being a cheesy story at all, it's actually rather realistic, and at times it's hard to take. The Indian culture is illustrated beautifully with all the grit and rich colors, and vibrant characters, this film is truly brought to life. I don't think there's another director out there who could've done it better. He also does a great job with pacing. His quick cutting and stylized shooting and editing styles help to speed up the film in some of it's slower moments. Not to mention the fantastic choice of music, mixing mostly Indian music, always with a great beat and some American music as well, when appropriate. It all comes together and tells a great and compelling story in an entertaining way. The acting in the film is very good from the entire cast. Three separate actors have to play the main character, Jamal, as well as his brother Salim. All three actors who play both characters do a great job. Even the younger actors show a great range, while none of the 6 actors have one particularly weak link of any kind. Much of the supporting cast must've been famous in India because many of the older men in the film just did a magnificent job. The love interest, Latika, was believably gourgeous when the final actress began to play the more mature version of the girl. There is no specific actor in the film that I can look at and say was miscast. The writing is all very well done. The movement in time is something that could've easily been screwed up but it's handled quite well. It also would've never ever worked as a narrative and the movement in time seemed very logical and necessary to effectively tell the story. The character arch's throughout the film are done to perfection and I can't say there were many moments were I thought something could've been more fleshed out. I suppose the romance plot line was a little simplistic and could've been delved into more, but it was believable enough that it didn't really effect the overall quality of the movie. Another big strength is the fact that it has a very wide appeal. The story is a very universal struggle that any culture can understand. It also should appeal to both sexes as it seems to cross into enough genres that it can interest both men and women. I don't know who truly would not enjoy or get something out of this film. As a whole it could be most easily compared to "City of God" but a little more positive, and I mean that as the highest of compliments. I had very few problems with any part of the film and the writing is no exception. "Slumdog Millionaire" is a totally welcome and very pleasant surprise. Not only is it one of the few films in recent memory that really immersed you in a very rich and colorful culture, but it also is one of the few that tells a story that will keep you in it's grip from start to finish. I'm sure a lot of dramatic license was taken while adapting this true story to the big screen, but that doesn't take much away from it. It's still one of the most positive yet realistic films I've seen in a long time and I highly recommend it to everyone out there. 9.5/10 |
November 23, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Låt den Rätte Komma In (Let the Right One in) - R |
I just recently heard about this little Swedish film within the past two weeks. I watched the trailer online, but did not see it anywhere else and thought it looked extremely interesting. After seeing the spectacular reviews it's been getting I had to head out to the theater and see it opening weekend. Hopefully it expands so everyone can see it as "Pan's Labyrinth" did two years ago because I believe this is the most original and interesting take on the Vampire film genre since it began. The direction in this film is superb. The characters are handled expertly and they really are the best part of the film. The director manages to flesh out the characters very effectively in scenes with little to no dialogue, and by the end you deeply sympathize with the main character Oskar, and you feel sorry for his love, a little vampire by the name of Eli. Do not be mistaken, this is a little kids love story, but NOT by any means a children's film. Like "Pan's Labyrinth" it's violent, bloody and disturbing, and it would frighten most children not in their teen years. The violence is handled in an extremely unsettling straightforward fashion. This is a film with a very modern edge, however it's simplistic style gives it a sort of odd awkwardness that is not used by director's often enough. You get to actually see what happens, you don't just see a vampire jump, then a shot of teeth, then blood, and then a shot of a vampire walking away. That's what so many American filmmakers would have done with this film because they think it's cool to make a film that plays to the ADHD crowd. This film takes it's time, it's never overly gross, although at some points its quite out there, but it obviously is handled by a director who knows how to present these things in a way that is most effective and most understandable. Not to mention some of the dark humor that is injected into the film at different parts makes the extremely dark landscape of a Sweden in winter a bearable setting for this film. You'll walk out satisfied, but you'll likely want to go get a little sun for a while. Sweden in the winter time is clearly the perfect place for a vampire and the director implies this throughout all the seemingly sunless scenes of the film. One of the other strengths that I attribute to both the writer and the director is the subtleties of the film. Many things are totally open to interpretation. After you watch the film, think about some of the characters, one great example being Eli's mysterious father figure, and then you might see what I'm talking about. This is a sweet film whit quite a bit of heart, but it might be a little less sweet then you'd originally imagined if you ponder the reason's for some of the characters actions. Think about the real meaning of the title and the answer to the purpose of the boy shall be revealed. Like "No Country for Old Men" it only gets more complex the more that you think about it, which to me is the mark of an amazing film. The great metaphor that the author of the book who then adapted his work into a screenplay provides us with is the metaphor of the girl in the relationship being the one who's a million times less innocent than the dumbfounded, inexperienced boy. She's a vampire for christ's sake and you see his nerdy boyish cluelessness throughout the entirity of the film while she remains very mysterious and protective of the boy. She doesn't want him to see her become violent or blood thirsty, so she always try's to make sure he doesn't have to. She tries to hide him from her real self, but then really ends up accepting him as her guardian, and her as his, which he really seems to understand by the end of the film. However I don't think he knows the full extent of what that relationship will entail as he grows older. The acting is nothing short of fantastic and it's one of the reasons the film is so amazingly effective. The director certainly had a lot of tools to utilize as he painted his vision onto the screen. The little boy, played by Kare Hedebrant, perfectly portrays a bullied and innocent kid who may go on to do something drastic if the bullying continues. The vampire, played by Lina Leandersson, does a great job of showing how much of a burden her "illness" really is, and probably would not wish it upon anyone else. All of the older adult characters in the film seem much less interesting, and are caught up with adult things too much to really intersect on an emotional level with the children. The bullies in the film do not have huge parts in terms of screen time, but effectively show how they could potentially drive Oskar into ruin if they continue their nonsense. Finally the older brother of one of the bullies who steps in after Oskar begins to fight back really does a good job of helping us empathize with the bullies as we can see that he probably was cruel to them because they are weaker than him, therfore they think its normal to be cruel to Oskar because he is weaker than them. The film is not quick paced, but it should always hold your attention. Keeping things simple does not mean making them uninteresting. You get to see Eli's tactics of luring in or attacking her victims and the effects she has on the society that she is in. It really shows realistically what it would be like to have a vampire in any modern day society. And I certainly left the theater very satisfied by its conclusion. "Let the Right One In" explores the mythos of the vampire and manages to make your stomach turn and your heart warm all in a period of 2 hours. It's a likely candidate for Best Foreign Language Film at any award ceremony come this February, and thus far it is absolutely my favorite film of the year. 10/10 |
October 26, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Body of Lies - R |
"Body of Lies" never had particularly eye catching trailers in terms of content, however the film always caught my eye anyway because of the talent behind it. Ridley Scott is not a director that's perfect by any means. He's mostly hit but sometimes miss. His work is not always the best, but generally it's at least passable. "Body of Lies" falls under a passable film, however it's a very dissapointing film as well because it did not seem like a film that would fall under that category. With the picky DiCaprio in the lead, as well as the always great Crowe receiving second billing, on top of Scott's name as director and Monahan's as writer I saw this as a Best Picture candidate from the beginning. So now that it's out and it seems like the only oscar's it might see are in technical categories, as well as a possible nod for Best Actor for DiCaprio this is, for me, a dissapointment. The direction is typical Scott, and I can just look at it and see that it's him. The dark black shadows that fill the frames as characters turn out of the light, the choppy, but not unclear editing during the action sequences, the subtle use of the shakey cam, as well as the heavy story that weaves together with a large amount of action. This screams "Ridley directed me!" the problem is why would someone as big as Scott come off of one of his biggest hits and pick a script that was as flawed as this one? It didn't seem to make its points well, and nothing was fleshed out quite enough for it to mesh together. My only theory on this is simple. Monahan is a very good writer who has a problem with keeping things tight. The only reason that's fine is because he writes long, but his films all need to be long to work, and in his case, they do work. "The Departed" was a fine film, perhaps not Best Picture worthy, but still quite good and it kept viewers entertained. He worked on that film with Scorsese but his other film he did with Scott, "Kingdom of Heaven". Now's the part where all of you who haven't seen the "Kingdom" Director's Cut will yell and say "Well then this guy isn't a consistently good writer. That movie was mediocre", and all of you that have will say "Those are both great films". Scott has always had an issue with picking content, that for whatever reason, too long, too new, too odd, the studio's want to cut something, or add something, that tends to make the film worse to say the least. The voiceover in the theatrical cut of "Blade Runner", and the extreme cut down of "Kingdom of Heaven" are two great examples of this. Had "Kingdom of Heaven" been released in its full version I truly believe it would have first off made more money because great reviews and WOM would've given it a nice bump overtime, and secondly it would've made it a serious oscar contender as "Gladiator" also was. I think that "Body of Lies" will undoubtedly have a director's cut released at some point after it comes out on DVD and this Director's cut will be atleast 30 minutes longer, and a whole lot more intelligent and well paced that the theatrical cut of the film was. So in reality Scott probably picked a very good script, and so did DiCaprio, who generally has great judgement. DiCaprio is not one of the mediocre or off parts of this film in any way. He does a great job and should maintain his status, especially if my theory is correct. The film wasn't a total disaster either. Many modern spy political thrillers in the past few years have bombed in a much bigger way. One example is Jake Gyllenhaal's forgotten "Rendition" which opened to just 4 million and was absolutely devoured by critics. "Body of Lies" is not at that level and I think anyone who saw the film and thought it wasn't very good, which includes myself, will not see the young actor as someone who is losing his touch or anything of the sort. He still has it, and I'm very glad he has another chance to shine this year with Sam Mendes's film in December. Crowe on the other hand is simply passable. His character is played very flatly and never really comes to life at all. I've heard that he was miscast and while I think he did fine I'm going to have to agree. I think the role would've been much better handled by an older southern actor like Tommy Lee Jones or Sam Shepard rather than Crowe. Why give a middle-aged Austrailian actor a role that belongs to an older American actor and then ask him to gain 50 pounds when the older American actor would've looked the part immediately. It's a good pairing of names: DiCaprio/Crowe. Which is plastered all over the posters that can be seen in any theater, but the casting just doesn't make much sense other than the starpower that Crowe brings to the film and his relationship with it's director, Ridley Scott. The other reason his character should've been American is because he represents the ignorant side of America. The side that thinks they know what they're talking about, but isn't willing to really look at facts to actually know what they're talking about. He makes bad decisions and angers everyone that works with him throughout the entire film. The actor who played the head of Jordanian National Security, Mark Strong, did a fantastic job and I could even see him getting some oscar buzz for best supporting actor. He gives a very commanding performance and seems to be the most interesting character in the whole film. The writing is very hit and miss and ultimately, if that Director's Cut theory ends up being false, the script absolutely dragged the film from a movie that could have been all kinds of great, and made it mostly mediocre. The movie is a modest 2 hours and 8 minutes yet it feels fairly slow in some parts. The subplots are generally not fleshed out all that much. DiCaprio's girlfriend is someone who we probably should care about, but we don't, and that's crucial. The subplot with Omar Sadiki should have fleshed out his character much more, but in the end, we once again don't care about him as much as we needed to for his section of the film to be truly effective. This film is about the mess in the middle east and how arrogant america is to think they can clean it up with very western strategies in such a different third world. Overall "Body of Lies" is a film that can be appreciated, but it's frustrating to see several great scenes in a film that is so inconsistent and emotionally polarizing. It could've been fantastic. The talent is there, but it just does not come together like it should have. If this seems like enough to keep you satisfied than the mess of a film that "Body of Lies" is should still work for you, but if you want to see a more fleshed out film, wait to see if a director's cut is released on DVD later on next year or even as late as the year after. 5/10 |
October 26, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Flash of Genius - PG-13 |
While many of you will likely be befuddled over my title I'm sure it will make plenty of sense as you read on. Flash of Genius is one of those movies that looked as though it had the potential to be a brilliant oscar contender. It seemed to take such a simple subject and turn it into something much more meaningful. It set itself up as the "Remember the Titans" of the windshield wiper drama genre. It didnt turn out that way though. The direction and writing are always the most important parts of a film. It's almost impossible to salvage an awful script, but if you mix a muddled script with direction that also doesn't know where to go, that's a recipe for disaster. "Flash of Genius" is directed by Marc Abraham, who gives his fairly unimpressive directorial debut, after having produced for a little under 2 decades. He seemed to overestimate the amount of sympathy the audience would give the main character, Dennis Kearns. Kearns is really a fairly unreasonable and stubborn man who essentially ruins his life in order to get credit for an invention he engineered. The style of the film is fairly non-descript other than a washed out tone it seemed to have across every frame that made it look slightly different and interesting. The pacing isn't the greatest either. The movie isn't totally awfully slow, but it certainly feels longer than its 2 hour running time, and it constantly felt like the main character was blowing things out of proportion. He alienates everyone around him, but I don't think the writer or the director understood that their main hero often looked way less logical or controlled than the people in the film that were supposed to be unreasonable jerks. The director and writer didn't seem to understand that this film would have been far more interesting had it been handled as a dark tale of obsession and despair rather than an inspirational family drama about a regular guy who suddenly turns into a crazy a**hole because Ford screwed him over once. They kind of make him out to be this hero of engineers where I really don't know who couldn't see him as a selfish, obsessed old man that ruined his life over a thing and alienated all the people that should have mattered more. It's a very sad story, that was advertised and played off as something you were supposed to see as "Wow, what a struggle of the human spirit. What an amazing man to stick to his beliefs for so long." So the writing and direction in the film is totally mishandled and muddled throughout much of the movie. There are a few great scenes that seem to really cut to the core of the character though. One is the conversation that Kearns has with his lawyer after the lawyer gets Ford to reach a settlement offer, and that was truly effective, and something that needed to be touched on much more throughout the film. Aside from the main characters, most of the other characters are hardly developed at all. All that you know is that his oldest son is mad at him, which seems to be the proper reaction judging by how much he split up the whole family. And the rest of his kids just kind of exist... His wife was very supportive while they were married, but then just got tired of it and left. Anyone should have after years and years of legal battles, and constant research. The acting is pretty solid from the cast featuring Kinnear in the lead role. He gives a solid performance, but seemed to be mis-directed in some scenes that really pushed the character away from the audience because he was too pushy or too paranoid. All of the other members of the cast don't ever get much of a chance to shine except Alan Alda's character who has a couple very memorable scenes which were probably two of the best in the film. The music in the film was probably one of my very biggest complaints. It's a bunch of kind of odd blues tunes with a very heavy organ backdrop that makes me feel like a black choir is going to pop up in the middle of every scene and just start blasting songs about Christ for everyone to hear. It does not work at all, and is probably the most noticeably annoying composition I've heard in a long time. "Flash of Genius" is an utterly mishandled film that could've been great had someone else had the opportunity to work on it. It's a film that really try's to be inspiring, but just ends up alienating the viewer in the process. It sees a man who is far from incredible and makes him look like someone to be admired. I'd say I would've identified with the movie more if it was clear that the writer and director understood the nature and the gravity of the terrible decisions their main character made. It didn't need to be inspiring, it just needed to be a movie that had an entirely different tone and feel thatn it had. It needed to be darker and more complex, a movie that teaches it's audience a lesson about what not to do, rather than saying, "Look at this crazy guy, isn't he great?". "Flash of Genius" could have been brilliant, but instead it's another forgotten film in a thus far very underwhelming fall season. 3/10 |
October 26, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Appaloosa - R |
The western genre happens to be one of my absolute favorites so Appaloosa seemed to be getting solid reviews and I love Mortensen, and Harris is a great actor, while being a pretty strong director as well. Naturally all of this easily got me out to the theater to check out the film with fairly mid-range expectations. The direction in the film is very simplistic and I enjoyed it for much of the film. However this simplistic style slows things down, which works when the characters are developing but it's kind of annoying when the movie becomes slightly tedious towards the end. At 1 hour and 53 mins it's not a good sign when you feel bored 20 minutes before its over, however it's not a bad show of direction at all. I think Harris is a fine director, but really it's the script that seemed to kind of botch things up. I'll critique that later. The cinematography is very still for much of the film, but its a great way to really show off how beautifully you can light as a Director of Photography. The film is done by veteran Cinematographer Dean Semler, best known for his work on "Dances With Wolves". He does a fantastic job of framing those simple wide shots and making the colors and lighting pop right off the screen. The acting in the film is pretty solid from most of the cast. Ed Harris plays Virgil Cole (who's name is repeated a fairly ridiculous number of times throughout the film) and gives a very stereotypical manly performance in which he's kind of stupid, but he always try's to be smarter than he really is. He ends up stuttering on words and having to ask for help from his more educated partner, Everett Hitch, played by Viggo Mortensen. Virgil inflicts brash, manly destruction when he gets angry, has a tough time understanding and being romantic with women, and seems to be an oaf of a man struggling to become a more intellectual man. He's got very old fashioned straight forward values and while this may sound very stereotypical, to a certain extent, his character is handled very well and that was not part of the film that I took a large amount of issue with. Mortensen gives a much calmer, controlled performance as his partner who is everything that Harris is not, except that Mortensen is still not someone to be messed with while he's holding a gun. Renee Zellwegger gave a decent performance, but her character wasn't all that interesting, and it didn't seem like there was much for her to play around with. She played a kind of typical women part, and both Harris's masculine role and Zellwegger's feminine role play off of stereotypes of each gender as they clash together. Jeremy Irons gives a fairly typical bad guy performance in the film, except that it was a bit odd that he was a British outlaw in the old west. That was not so typical (or believable but who cares?). The writing is where I think Appaloosa had it's major issues. It's got some golden lines, and many of the man/women relationship aspects are amusing as well, but much of the movie is slightly hokey and it felt as though I was watching a bloodier, longer, color episode of "Gunsmoke" at times. The films second half is likely it's weak link. As soon as the outlaw Bragg (Irons) makes an escape from a transport train I'd say the movie turns for the worst. It still continues with the rugged man archetype aspect which as I said seemed to work fine, but it just got so slow after that that it was a bit difficult to sit still in some scenes. This is coming from the guy whose favorite movie last year was the 3 hour "The Assassination of Jesse James" so that should tell you just how tedious "Appaloosa" becomes. The very end is fairly satisfying, however Mortensen's voice over is a bit cheesy and unnecessary. Both at the beginning and end he has a few lines of voice over that make your eyes roll a bit. My biggest complaint about the film however is the fact that I can't answer the question, Why was this made? When a stupid movie like "Date Movie" comes out and makes me want to throw up because it's so bad I can say "It was made to make the studio money." and as sad as that is, it is still a reason. There were two western's last year that were very very different from each other. One was "3:10 to Yuma" and the other "The Assassination of Jesse James". "3:10" was fairly fast moving, entertaining, and in the end, a fairly commercial crowd-pleaser of a film. "Assassination" was a work of art, that showcased some of the best cinematography of all time, as well as giving the viewer some very interesting insight into history that can easily teach us lessons about fame and obsession, linking to our fame enthralled modern day society. "Appaloosa" is kind of entertaining sometimes and kind of serious sometimes. It doesn't give much insight into history, and it moves as slow as a snail other times. I don't understand what drove Ed Harris to say "I want to write and direct this film." What was so interesting about it? Is "Appaloosa" a bad film? No, it's just not a very good one. It's a modest film that gives viewers a few chuckles and showcases some very solid acting from a talented cast of artists. The style is refreshing at times, but it slows the film down and ultimately, if the material was more new or interesting the style shouldn't have bogged it down or made it tedious at all. This just isn't fresh or engaging enough to grab my attention and while the first hour is cliche, but charming, the next 40 or so minutes after that are annoyingly cliche and don't seem to work like the beginning of the film does. The last bit of the film were Mortensen comes to the conclusion that he has to make everything right, is actually a fairly satisfying ending to an otherwise oddly dissapointing film that happens to be part of a genre I keep ever so near to my heart. 4.5/10 |
October 26, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Burn After Reading - R |
"Fargo" sits high up on my all time favorite list and the Coen's have not made anything close to the quality of it until "No Country" came out. That came close, but it didn't quite reach the level of originality of "Fargo". The advertisements for "Burn After Reading" didn't look to me like it would be the Coen's next "Fargo". It did however look like it was going to be one of their most fun and darkly funny films yet and being a big fan of the guys I was pretty excited to go and see it. I did not get exactly what I was expecting, nor did many of the folks in my theater. The direction from the two brothers is a mixed bag. On one hand you've got a few golden scenes, but on the other you've got a ton that fall totally flat and that just aren't very funny at all. You expect the movie to be hectic and crazy, but what I personally didn't expect was for the tone of the film to be so darn serious for the most part. Some of the only funny scenes in the trailer such as many of the scenes with Pitt and maybe a couple Malkovich out bursts were quite hilarious as well (although not much of the insane amount of foul language was shown in the trailer. The film actually was quite disturbing in a few places and it jsut didn't seem like the brothers achieved exactly the feeling they were looking for throughout the film. It just doesn't work like "Fargo" did. You hate all the characters in the film except Pitt Select the black box below with your cursor to view the spoiler text (and he dies about 45 minutes before the movie is over and probably has about 20 minutes of screen time) because they're all cold bastards and if they aren't cheating on somebody then they're doing stupid desperate things, ala McDormand's character. I suppose the parts of the film that seemed to work best were any of the J.K. Simmons conversations. They are hilarious and seem to absolutely achieve the level of laugh factor you would've expected from a decent amount of the film that you really only get in a couple scenes. The acting is pretty solid despite what I might say about the film. Malkovich could probably be considered the character the story seems to kind of revolve around, although I wouldn't say there is any one single main character and there are many perspective changes which also was a bit of a throw off, and not in a decidedly interesting way like in "No Country". I'd say Clooney seems very oddly awkward in some of his scenes and personally I didn't really like that. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Tilda Swinton does what she needs to do, but thats not much besides be a cold hearted ***** of a middle aged woman. McDormand is kind of sweet but also really far too stupid to really make her a character you can really empathize with or connect with. It doesn't have that Marge escape or connect factor that "Fargo" had. Pitt is quite naive and stupid but he's also very likeable and you don't really get frustrated by his characters actions. His character arch is very believable and he's the one I could at least sympathize with out of the bunch. Malkovich also follows a very realistic character arch and to a certain extent you can sympathize with him. His performance is very solid and he does what he needs to do, but once again, you kind of hate his character by the end of the movie. Richard Jenkins is probably the saddest of the bunch. You feel awful for the guy and he's the probably the nicest character in the film. He seems to know the risks he takes when he takes them, but he's treated terribly and it just didn't play very well at all. The Coen's have always been very meticulous about their writing and their scripts being followed pretty much exactly while on set. They don't like to change lines or letters or anything really and they make sure their scripts are absolutely perfect before they get on set. This is not one of their best efforts. I think I pretty much stated all the script issues in the previous two paragraphs though. The characters suck and just don't work well together, and the audience really can't identify with many of them, and none of them offer any kind of escape from the films really nasty and odd sections. It seems that the whole point of the entire movie was that if you're middle aged and married you're relationship probably sucks and you and your spouse both cheat, and if you're unmarried you really want to find someone, but they're likely cheating on their wife or husband while they're with you. I honestly can't say I took away much more from this movie than that. This film is so negative and odd that it really makes you wonder how the Coen's are doing in their own relationships. Still, I honestly can say that about 20 minutes of this film are totally awesome. There are a few scenes that are infuriating to me because they just didn't work the way they were edited or shot. Something was off during any scenes that were supposed to be darkly funny but ended up being really kind of disturbing and pretty unfunny to say the least. I don't know how anyone could consider this a straight up comedy. I laughed over the course of the film about as many times, maybe a couple more, than I did throughout the entirity of "No Country". So in conclusion "Burn After Reading" is a film that really throws you off in all kinds of bad ways and doesn't have many redeeming, entertaining, or informative qualities to say the least. I wouldn't say this is a hateable film, but its not a very likeable one. 3.5/10 |
September 16, 2008 | N/A | |||
| Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle - R | August 23, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| The Dark Knight - PG-13 | July 21, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| Mamma Mia! - PG-13 | July 21, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| Grand Canyon - R | July 11, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| Vantage Point - PG-13 | July 9, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay - R | July 9, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| Street Kings - R | July 9, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| Stop Loss - R | July 9, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| In Bruges - R | July 9, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| WALL-E - G | July 6, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| Spider-Man 3 - PG-13 | July 1, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| Memento - R | July 1, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| Wanted - R | June 30, 2008 | N/A | ||||
| In the Valley of Elah - R | June 30, 2008 | N/A |
1790 ratings
136 reviews
