Chappaquiddick

• 87 friends
• 1223 ratings
• 9 reviews
• Favorite Skins (2)

No new reviews. Rate some more movies.

• 
  I recommend you see...

  Step Brothers

  by edwin

  Quick Review:
  
  Teaming up again after Talladega Nights, Ferrell and Reilly continue to hit some high marks on the funny scale. The first half of the picture is so raunchy, so over the top laden with profanities of epic proportion that only the stingiest of shrews could resist cracking at least a smile. I laughed, a lot, hard. It was sad to me then that things went downhill about halfway through. The laughs tend to get less hearty as the film progresses, losing a lot of steam in the process.
  Of course the story is not at all believable, although not quite as outrageous as Anchorman (okay, maybe as outrageous). Of course, the crew here is not aiming at realism here, so the ludicrous plot is of no great concern. All that matters is that you laugh. And in the end, I think Step Brothers provides enough laughs to justify a recommendation.
  If you like your humor lewd and crude on your brain's day off, Step Brothers is for you. If you're not into that kind of comedy, then I think you get the message.

  bort16

  The first half of Step Brother's is really quite hilariously vulgar. Sadly it loses a lot of steam as the film progresses. Nevertheless, there are, I think, enough laughs throughout to warrant a look.
  If you're into this kind of foul-mouthed crude and outrageous humor, this is your movie. If you're not, why are you still reading this?
  

  posted 1 day ago
• 
  havepint0202

  Have A wonderful day

  Copy This Widget

  
  

  posted 5 days ago
• 
  I recommend you see...

  Mon Oncle Antoine

  by edwin

  Despite having a heavy film industry presence (usually American productions looking for cheap locations), Canada's own gems have often gone by the wayside. We're too close to America to really for it to care enough about a film not about its own country, and too far from overseas to have the exotic flare found in European or Asian cinema. Perhaps that is why the film considered Canada's best goes so widely underseen and overlooked. Claude Jutra's classic Mon Oncle Antoine truly is one of the best Canadian films ever made. It's also one of my favourite films, period. It is now out in a lovely 2 disc package from the folks at Criterion.
  Set in an early 1940s Quebec asbestos mining town, it's a coming of age story over the course of a few days at Christmas time. Adolescent Benoit lives with his uncle, Antoine, his aunt, and a teenage girl, Carmen, who the family houses and employs at their store. Antoine not only owns the local general store, but is the local undertaker as well, among other things.
  The film floats around, with no real plot-wise direction. Events happen in a relaxed and patient fashion, not to highlight story, but to highlight the emotional development of Benoit as he transforms from a free spirited adolescent into adulthood. He experiences the sexual passions, the harsh indifferences and the cynicism of leaving childhood behind. Jutra balances light hearted humour and charm with dark pathos and sadness with a deft hand. There are playful moments between Antoine and Carmen, and comedy with the sneaky Fernand (played by Jutra himself), who runs the store for Antoine when he's not chasing the uncle's wife. There is also a moment of great triumph when Benoit and another boy throw snowballs at the mine owner as he makes his way through town giving out small gift bags for Christmas rather than raises or bonuses to the men as the soundtrack blares a score fit for a spaghetti western.
  On the darker side, there is a separate story where a family's father leaves the mines and heads to the logging camps. While he is away, his eldest son takes ill, and dies on Christmas Eve. Antoine is phoned to come pick up the boy's body, and Benoit insists he go along. The long sleigh ride through a snow storm offers him opportunities for mischief, but in the end leaves him with sad realizations about the nature of adulthood and those around him.
  Mon Oncle Antoine is certainly about the loss of innocence, but it is also more than just a story about a boy in rural Quebec. It is a parable about the coming of age of the province itself. Most of the mines were owned by either Americans or English speaking Canadians, as referenced by the film when the mine foreman speaks in English to his French workers who do not understand. The time period is the Maurice Duplessis era - he was the premier of Quebec with his Union Nationale. His party was deeply conservative, pro-business, rabidly anti-socialist (in any form), and formed deep rooted connections with the traditional Catholic clergy. He was also deeply corrupt, and reportedly a master of ballot stuffing. It's also just prior to the Asbestos Mine strikes and the Quiet Revolution. The miners voted to strike, which was deemed illegal by Duplessis, who continued to pledge unwavering support for the mine owners,. He also authorized the use of strike breakers which lead to incidents of violence. However, the miners had the widespread support of the public and the French media, and even most priests and the province's archbishop. This marked a major turning point in Quebec culture, as well as the shift to the social left in a large part of Canadian Catholicism. Separatist ideology increased dramatically.
  Of course French English tensions are important in Canadian history. Many Anglos hate the French, and many French hate the Anglos. My own family has an interesting connection to French/English hostility. It was a number of years before I discovered I am half French: my mother's grandfather was a widowed Frenchman from Cape Breton; when he remarried, his new wife forced him to change his name from Fougere to Fraser, so she would not have to be shamed with a French surname.
  History lessons aside, the physical construction of the film, meant to evoke life in the harsh mining towns in the Asbestos region, must be recognized. The small town, shadowed by the mine hills, literally exudes its cold surroundings, yet still manages to fill its homes with undeniable warmth thanks to its characters. Jutra also uses practical, naturalistic lighting rather than normal crisp studio lighting. The sounds and senses of Canadian winters are placed front and centre by Jutra. This is how these towns are supposed to look and feel during winter. The feel of the film is not limited to Quebec culture. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia not only have massive French populations and culture, but the same woods, the same houses, the same towns. I know the feel of small harsh industrial towns - I grew up in one in Nova Scotia. They are not at all unlike the one in Mon Oncle Antoine. Most of them still look just like they did 50 years ago (if not worse). Perhaps that is one of the reasons why I love this film so much. It's the sensation of familiarity found in Eastern Canadian life and culture (which has its own very large French/Acadien population and culture).
  But alas, I am rambling, and fear that I could go on and on. Mon Oncle Antoine is one of the great hidden gems of the cinema. Its performances are earnest; the photography is evocative and beautiful in that cold, bleak sort of way; its direction is assured and inspired. It is a masterful portrait of childhood's twilight, and a sad but hopeful realization of the loss of innocence - a parable for the whole of Quebec.

  bort16

  Widely considered to be Canada's greatest film, Mon Oncle Antoine was just released by the folks at Criterion in a nicely done 2 disc package, with some great extras on the tragic filmmaker Jutra.
  This is one of my all time favorite films, and subsequently has received one of my longest reviews!
  I implore everyone to check it out if you have not seen it. It's a wonderful film, balancing light hearted charm and humor with dark and sad realizations about growing up.

  posted 9 days ago
• 
  I recommend you see...

  Ravenous

  by edwin

  Ravenous is a picture just weird enough to match its strange subject matter. For that it did itself no favours with the public, but it gained a certain amount of respect and admiration from a good many.
  Captain Boyd (Guy Pearce) is sent to a Californian Fort in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, as punishment for his cowardice. He is celebrated as a hero publicly after overtaking an enemy stronghold, but as he points out he was only able to do so by an act of cowardice. He played dead, and was stacked in with other dead men piled on top of him, their blood running into his mouth. This he says changed him, gave him strength, and he was subsequently able to fight his way out from behind enemy lines. Since it would set a bad precedent to explicitly punish him, the army sends him to the isolated post.
  Fort Spencer is cold, lonely, and quite unsettling. There is but a skeleton crew - Col. Hart (Jeffrey Jones), Pvt Toffler, the religious one (Jeremy Davies), Pvt Cleaves (David Arquette), Knox (Stephen Spinella), and Reich, the soldier (Neal McDonough). Also at the post are two Native Americans, George and Martha, who it is said more or less came with the location.
  One night a mysterious man shows up, claiming to have been lost on an expedition for three months now in the mountains. They survived by eating whatever they could until the first casualty, then they ate the body. Their taste for human meat was peaked, and they began killing eachother off to quench their evergrowing hunger. That man is Calhoun (Robert Carlyle). He claims that he ran away from the group, and that there is only one woman left, and a man who's hunger could not be sufficed, Col Ives. He leads the soldiers to a cave where it turns out he is actually the real Col Ives, and has tricked them into a trap.
  The film turns from there into a cat and mouse game between Boyd and Ives, and a tale of to eat or not to eat human flesh, which the Native George explains allows the eater to gain the power of the eaten. Director Antonia Boyd, a vegetarian, makes scenes of eating rather repulsive, and uses music as a focal point for highlighting the strangeness of the picture. She makes Ravenous not a horror-gore fest (though there are moments horror in nature and occasional buckets of gore), but a pitch black comedy-thriller-suspense-mystery.
  The film is ambitious, maybe a little too ambitious for its script. It gets lost at times shifting between its genres and intentions, which likely was the directors intention though. This film is not just offbeat, its a mish mash of entirely different tempos. That could have been a recipe for disaster, but Bird handles things at just the right pace, and just the right oddity to create what really is a very unique and entertaining film.
  I like to think of Ravenous as something of a cult favorite of mine. I admire greatly the work here. Bird makes the locations feel cold, dirty, and uncomfortable, and the actors all hit their marks with the right resonance. Carlyle is particularly menacing, and darkly amusing, as Ives/Calhoun. The actors should all be commended, not least for their courage to take on such a strange project that was clearly doomed to fail at the box office.
  The music is more or less a star in the film itself. Its strange, amusing, bewildering, and fascinating all at once.
  Yes, the story loses its way at times, and seems to be there simply to suffice the films style and texture, but Ravenous is a film that cries out for such style. I don't know if its necessarily aiming for greatness, but its reaching high into uncharted skies, and for that I am one of those who's admiration and respect Ravenous has earned.

  bort16

  Lots of you have already seen this one, but what the hell.
  I am a big fan of Ravenous, and have admired its uncompromising oddness since I first saw it.

  posted 15 days ago
• 
  I recommend you see...

  The Dark Knight

  by edwin

  Why so serious, Batman? Well, because it's the way you were meant to be. The Dark Knight is just as its title would suggest - this is a dark, brooding, and maddening film. Lead by an array of characters, Christopher Nolan's new installment weaves, dances, and smashes its way through its story.
  This time out, Batman of course does battle with the Joker. This is not your Jack Nicholson Joker, nor your campy 60s Joker. Heath Ledger takes the legendary character and turns him into what he was meant to be - a maniacal, socio-psychopathicm agent of chaos. He adds moments of humor, indeed, but in the darkest and often most disturbing of manners.
  Given how many people want to see this, I will waste little time in divulging plot details. Suffice to say that the story by the Nolan brothers and Goyer twists and turns its way through a continuous maze of carnage and chaos, full of surprises and intelligence.
  This is a long one, clocking in at 2 1/2 hours, but it moves with break neck pace while maintaining nail biting patience. Nolan makes use of tense build-ups, and some chillingly effective moments in the score. The camera work is fantastic, with the camera often weaving and spinning its way through scenes, creating an almost unconscious sense of bewilderment and dizziness.
  To call The Dark Knight a comic book film is entirely inaccurate. It has more to do with a standard crime thriller (or even a horror film) than standard comic book fare. Which is in no way meant as an insult to comic book films (or comic books). This is simply an observation. Nolan has taken Batman and made him real.
  Chicago is again used as Gotham, and this time gets even more into the city streets. Action is flanked by towering buildings along narrow city streets, creating a sense of the real down and dirty violence that simply is not afforded by other CGI fantasy cities. Even Batman Begins is nowhere near the level of realism presented by Gotham here.
  The entire film is shot with the hand and eye not just of a true filmmaker, but a great one. Christopher Nolan has breathed entirely new life into the Batman legacy, which was once almost doomed to camp and cornball antics in the 90s. This is such a dark, gritty, and mesmerizing experience, one that transcends the boundaries of standard filmgoing experiences, and literally makes you feel like you are there. Nolan deserves all the praise in the world for taking on a pop culture project and turning it into an intelligent, thoughtful, and darkly artistic portrait of madness.
  Much praise must also go to the actors. To begin, Heather Ledger, who steals every scene he is in. His performance is a work of mad genius, that likely will garner him at least an Oscar nod. Of course Christian Bale also continues to show why he is the best Batman ever. Aaron Eckhart also gives a very strong performance as Harvey Dent. They all play second fiddle to Ledger though, and all seem very happy to have done so.
  
  Now like any self respecting cinephile, it's often difficult to praise the genius of a film the likes of Batman. It's pop culture mainstream fair. You can see that in the reviews of lots of critics. But it simply would be unfair to deny the greatness of The Dark Knight. There are only a few minor problems with the picture, none significant. Its everything it needed to be. And while I may not be able to say if this is the best fest film I've seen this year, it's certainly the one I can't wait to see again most.

  bort16

  A lot of talk has been done saying this is one of the best comic book films ever made. I disagree that it is really appropriate to call it a comic book film, but I also disagree that this is "one of the best" comic book films ever made. No. This is THE best comic book film ever made. There is no point beating around the bush.

  posted 19 days ago
• 
  I recommend you see...

  Deep Water

  by edwin

  "It is indifferent... it's there waiting for you to make one slip up."
  Those words (paraphrased) are perhaps the best sum up of the nature of the ocean I have ever heard muttered. Its furies are boundless, not least of which, her loneliness. Those words come from the mesmerizing and heartbreaking documentary Deep Water. It is the story of Donald Crowhurst, an amateur sailor who partook in the 1969 Sunday Times Race around the World. If you do not know his story, it may be best to stop reading now. Don't read this or any other information on Crowhurst or the race. Find the film and just watch it.
  After the first solo circumnavigation of the ocean in 1967, adventurers and watchers of adventurers began seeking the next one-up. This time the journey would have to be done without making landfall or stopping along the way. Having fallen on hard times, Crowhurst saw the race as a great chance to get his family back on their feet. He had lived through financial hardships as a child, and wanted part in going back to such a life. So he set out to find sponsors, and soon did in Stanley Best and Rodney Hallworth. The two men spelled the potential cash cow, and granted Crowhurst a boat, on the condition that if he should pull out of the race he would be forced himself to pay the expenses. His boat however was in serious need of repairs, and he feared it would not be ready in time for the final departure day. He was informed however by his sponsor's that he simply must go - after all, they ponied up the dough and expected it back many a time over.
  The details of the story are infamous: Crowhurst's boat began taking on water, and his progress slowed to a crawl. Faced with the decision of trying to round the horn of Africa (certain death in such a boat) or turn back (financial devastation and destitution), he searched for a third option. He chose to hide out, alone on his yacht, waiting for other competitors to round Cape Horn in South America. From there he would rejoin the race. He reported false positions, and record breaking speeds. Then he stopped all communication for fear that his position would be given away. He also had to painstakingly construct fake log books for each day of a journey he did not take. Eventually the loneliness, the guilt, and the realization that he would likely be caught weighed too heavy on Crowhurst. His final log entries make the musings of a Kurtz seem entirely sane. Only a few weeks from home, he turned his boat away from home, and is reported to have jumped overboard soon thereafter.
  Crowhurst's odyssey is a fascinating one, and its ending is heartbreaking, but strikes of inevitability. It is a story of a descent into madness, teased on by the infinite abyss of the cruel seas. The filmmakers do a wonderful job in telling this story. It's put together with chilling audio and video recordings done by Crowhurst, and narrations of his ever-increasingly maddening log notes. The story starts slowly, and may distract some viewers, but the rewards of the story are entirely worthwhile as it progresses.
  There are also inquiries into some of the other competitors, such as Frenchman Bernard Moitessier, who was on par to likely win the speed competition, only to pull out and begin a second trip around the world. Also in the film is Robin Knox-Johnston, who was the winner of the competition. He donated his prize money to the Crowhurst family.
  To read briefly on the Crowhurst saga simply does not do justice. It's interesting of course, but a quick browse bypasses the raw emotions and oddness presented here. The final moments of Deep Water are genuinely heart breaking, hearing the thoughts of his widowed family, and the adoration and understanding of his friends. This is a fascinating story, and it is that which carries the documentary into such great channels.

  bort16

  If I can find any inkling of a hint that this has a theatrical release in 2008, this story is sure to find its way into my top ten for the year.
  
  This is a fascinating but heart wrenching story that seems almost too strange to be true.

  posted 23 days ago
• 
  I recommend you see...

  The Seven Samurai (Shichinin no Samurai)

  by Ken

  Even though this is a very long movie(3 and a half hours), it doesn't have a wasted scene. The fight scenes aren't all that choreographed and it looks morerealistic that way. You get to know most of the characters and you fell very sad when there is a loss. Awesome movie, one of the few I will watch over again if I ever get the time.

  kcddck

  Hey, you should really see this!

  posted 24 days ago
• 
  I recommend you see...

  M

  by Ken

  A very well though out movie that shows the proces of the police trying to catch a child killer. Very interesting concept, especially for that time period as it seemed as if movies were heavily cnesored at that time. A young Peter Lorre hives a great performance.

  kcddck

  Hey, you should really see this!

  posted 24 days ago
• 
  I recommend you see...

  Aleksandra (Alexandra)

  by edwin

  As one of the least discussed modern conflicts, it?s not unsurprising that the Chechen War has rarely been covered on film, certainly not in such a profound and visceral manner as depicted in Aleksandra. Aleksander Sokurov, the visionary helmer of The Russian Ark, turns an ugly conflict into a moving and gentle experience.
  The aging Aleksandra is granted a trip to visit her grandson, an officer in the Russian Chechen campaign, at his station post in the heart of Chechnya. She takes the train with other soldiers, and upon arrival is driven to the base in an armoured vehicle. There she waits for her grandson to return during the night. He arrives through the night as she sleeps, and in the morning takes her on a tour of the camp: showing her the vehicles, the tents, the guns. When he is away, Aleksandra curiously explores the base on her own, talking without intimidation with the other soldiers. She gives them meat pies, and the comforts of a mother figure in a world of testosterone, blood, and fear.
  This film is one of sensations, of atmosphere. You feel the heat of the dry Chechen landscape (it appears to have been shot in and around Grozny). You feel the tension of hatreds engrained in the psyche of both the Russians and the Chechens. You feel the dirt and the grime of the Russian base, and its intimidating and archaic structure. It is a labyrinth of tents, wood, and barbed wire. It is a rightful character in itself. You feel the oddity of seeing an aged and soft bodied woman, looking as a saint among sinners in that craggy landscape.
  The entire mood of the film is oddly affecting. Despite its gentle story, it expresses an unstated sense of menace. This is a troubled land, filled with unseen terror ? the undercurrents of tension are palpable. And yet, old Aleksandra shows no fear. Not in the face of the shockingly young Russian soldiers who try to disobey her to go here or there, only to end up following her commands. And not in the face of angry Chechens in the market, to where she goes off alone.
  Indeed, it is in that market that one of the most rewarding sections of the film takes place. Aleksandra, shunned by a young Chechen man because she is Russian, is welcomed by an older Chechen woman, much like herself. Among this woman and her friends, Aleksandra forms a bond that transcends hatred, and reaches towards nothing more than humanity and compassion.
  Aleksandra is more than just a war film, or even a film about war. The only shot fired in the film is by Aleksandra herself ? an empty chamber in an AK-47, shown to her by her grandson. This is a film about human convictions, and inevitabilities. Why is she even here? The grandson?s commanding officer asides that usually he brings girls to visit him, but this time he?s oddly requested his grandmother. He knows it is inevitable that he will likely die in this war, just as she confides that her time is invariably near. But the film also makes it clear that not everything is doomed to inevitability. Hate does not have to be manifest naturally. It is a product of unnecessary cruelty and unfairness. Sokurov takes no obvious stance on either the side of the Chechens or the Russians, and so I will not invoke any clear reference here ? other than to simply point out that those with a working knowledge of the foundations for the ongoing conflict should have by now found it obvious who holds the majority of blame for this hell.
  This is a small story, and a concept not unfamiliar. What heightens a simple parable into grandeur is execution. Sokurov is a visionary, and his eye for visceral storytelling through sound and image to create the perfect mood is a marvellous example of what the art of filmmaking is all about. This film has the heart, the soul, and the wisdom necessary to reach that level of grandeur. This is a great and profound film.

  bort16

  A simple story brilliantly executed by Russian tone poet Aleksander Sokurov. The film mixes overcurrents of gentle humanity with undercurrents of menace and hate to a startling success in a parable about the human condition at the extremes of conflict.

  posted 27 days ago
• 
  I recommend you see...

  The Thin Red Line

  by edwin

  I first saw Terrence Malick's take on James Jones Novel, The Thin Red Line, the year that it came out. I didn't know what to make of it. Perhaps it was my age, I was younger then, and could not understand it. It wasn't full of battle scenes and gore like Saving Private Ryan. I got bored.
  
  Since then I've seen the film numerous times; what made me go back and give it another shot I do not know. What I do know, is that The Thin Red Line is the film that turned me onto film. Over the years since the films release I've fell into love with it. In my mind, there are few movies of the 90s that match its greatness. The Thin Red line is frankly a modern masterpiece.
  
  Like most masterpieces, it is bound to be misunderstood. I can think of very few other films that are filled with such depth and beauty. Like Malick's other films, what you see isn't necessarily what you get. There is an abundance of underlying messages and meaning in the film, making it very difficult to grasp. Also, the films style is strange, having an almost total lack of narrative, making it, as Martin Scorcese put it, an endless picture. The names and voice overs are difficult to distinguish and often indifferent to what is happening on screen, but it's all done for a reason. War has faces and names dropped on you out of nowhere with recruits and the chaotic nature of it all; often people disappear amid the bullets and the carnage, and new faces replace them.
  
  It has been said that the movie has no main character. This could be true, but there are multiple main characters, similar to the book. Witt, Tall, Welsh, Staros, Bell - all main characters. Perhaps the best way to describe it is to call the whole company, C company, the main character.
  
  The film follows the company through Guadalcanal, dropping into the lives of various characters here and there, all trying to deal with the war in their own way. It is difficult to get into a descriptive plot outline simply because the film is almost plot less. Those who've read the book will recognize the machinations, but the film was more inspired by the novel, rather than a film version of it. It would be virtually impossible to film the book as it is.
  
  War is chaos, and the film clearly displays this, and recognizes that war does not ennoble men, it "turns them into dogs. Poisons the Soul." The film focuses more on how those men that are thrust into it try to cope with the dehumanization, all looking for inner peace. The Thin Red Line is filled with beautiful images and beautiful poetry; starkly contrasting the horror of reality. The film also contains one of the most powerful scenes I have ever seen. The scene involves the company charging through the woods looking to attack a Japanse bivouac. They walk through the fog carpeted forest as you hear only the whiz of bullets passing by from seemingly out of nowhere. When they finally reach the site of the attack, the camera moves frantically, chasing soldiers here and there, from the viewpoint of both American and Japanese soldiers. The music in this scene is quite possibly the key to why it becomes so powerful. Another scene, a death scene, haunts me every time i see it.
  
  The Thin Red Line evokes a sense of tranquility in the middle of chaos, and begs questions that may possibly never be answered, but need to be asked nonetheless. The late Gene Siskel called the film on its release "the finest contemporary war film." The film is still misunderstood years later, but its popularity is growing and its finally becoming regarded as a masterpiece. Martin Scorcese has called this the second best film of the 90s- it should be noted that the film he chose as number 1, was made in the 80s, it just never gained popularity in North America until the 90s.
  
  Unlike films like Saving Private Ryan, who's repeat viewings offer nothing new, you can watch The Thin Red Line time after time after time, and see a different film every time.
  
  This film touched me personally. It showed me that film was more than entertainment - it not only is legitimate are, but the ultimate medium for it.

  bort16

  A film that has divided many, upon release and still today. It divided me. I thought it was stupid and boring when i first saw it. Then I got older, a little wiser. I watched it again for reasons that are still beyond my grasp. I fell in love, and I revisit that love often. This is the film that taught me to appreciate the art of filmmaking. For that reason, The Thin Red Line is the film which touches me perhaps the deepest of all others.

  posted 30 days ago
• 
  I recommend you see...

  Get Smart

  by edwin

  Would you believe... that Get Smart just barely misses it.... by that much.
  I struggled with grading the film adaptation of the classic TV spy spoof. On the one hand, I felt like it just didn`t flow. On the other, there are some very funny moments, and Steve Carell simply nails Maxwell Smart. I couldn`t believe it could even be done, with the iconic status of Don Adams`character, but by god Carell gets it. That alone is worth a viewing.
  The film version starts just before the beginning of Max`s career as an agent. He works for Control as one of their best analysts. He has all the skills to be an agent, but the Chief (Alan Arkin) informs him that he`s just too useful as an analyst. Things change however when Control HQ is attacked, and the identities of all agents in the field are recovered, save for 99, who has just had an extreme facial reconstruction. The Chief has no other option but to put Max in the field, and his dream comes true.
  From there the two globe trot to Russia, in search of nuclear weaponry and the Chaos agents who are behind the attack on Control. That basically sets up the plot for what follows. The story moves with some twists and turns, and some suprisingly spectacular stunt work.
  In addition to Carell`s wonderful portrayal of Max, Alan Arkin as the Chief is also great. He is the other big highlight of the film, alongside Carell and the stunt work. Dwayne `The Rock`Johnson and Anne Hathaway are more or less just sufficient in their roles, despite Hathaway of course looking gorgeous. She doesn`t really feel like she is 99.
  The problem with the movie si that it sometimes falls into childishness humor, and certain jokes just aren`t that funny to begin with. On the other hands, there are some great moments of wry comic banter, such as a scene where Max, undercover, meets a top chaos agent (Terrence Stamp).
  
  I can`t for the life of me tell you not to see Get Smart, and it`s almost impossible to dissuade you from seeing it in the theatre considering all the effort that went into the great actions scenes. My advice: rent it, and watch it on the biggest TV screen on your block.
  I will also say this: if Get Smart becomes a franchise, it has all the tools it needs to become very good. As long as Carell and Arkin reprise their roles, I will buy a ticket in hopes of a better screenplay.
  Sorry about this one, Chief.

  bort16

  I almost gave this a positive review simply for Carell, Arkin, and the stunt work, but alas I could not. My guilty pleasure was used up on The Happening.
  My advice, wait for the DVD and watch it on the biggest TV screen on your block.
  If they make another one, I seriously hope to see a better screenplay. The ingredients are there, they just need to be mixed properly.

  posted 30 days ago
• 
  I recommend you see...

  The New World

  bort16

  For some reason, I never had a review or rating posted for The New World, despite having seen it twice in the theatre and having written a review for another site over two years ago.
  
  Well, I have changed that. This was one of the best films of 2005, and I think one of those movies that will be looked upon in the years to come great admiration, much as The Thin Red Line is beginning to enjoy.
  
  I was alerted to my lack of a review by two things: 1) There will be a 170 minute extended edition (billed as Malick's original vision) released this October; and 2) Malick is currently filming his next film, the ambitious Tree of Life, with Brad Pitt and Thin Red Line alumni Sean Penn. Its due out sometime next year.

  posted 30 days ago
• 
  I recommend you see...

  The Air I Breathe

  by edwin

  Kinetic Pretentiousness from the word go. Lee has some directorial skills, but its painfully obvious that he thinks The Air I Breathe is some kind of ultra important and trascendental masterpiece. Its not. Now pretentious movies are occasionally fine, and can sometimes be even good. But when such a movie thinks its so great, well that is just a deadly reciple.
  There is nothing in The Air I Breathe that you can't find in a run of the mill after school special. Its not nearly as intelligent as it would have you believe, and far more shallow than it even realizes.
  The film is fairly well made, as far as physically putting a picture together, but in terms of writing, this thing is a mess. Its only half decent line shows up on the opening titlecard, credited to 19th century American clergyman Henry Ward Beecher. Even it comes off heavy handed, especially as the film goes on. The first line of actual dialogue comes soon after, spoken by Happiness (Forrest Whitaker), pondering whether or not a catapillar realizes how beautiful it becomes when it morphs into a butterfly. Its a cringeworthy line that may have sounded good on paper in a second rate poem, but heard aloud its nearly cringeworthy. There are a number of such lines scattered throughout the film.
  There are also scenes of the same nature - i.e. a laughing and camera spinning Forrest Whitaker after he's cornered for robbing a bank. Or maybe a scene thats meant for laughs in which Andy Garcia's Finger's (You should ask him why he's called that) and a partner groove to Trista's new track (Aka Sorrow, aka Sarah Michelle Gellar). These scenes are rarely funny, and its no exception here.
  The film's saving grace (if it can be called that) is that it is broken down into 4 segments, based on a chinese proverb regarding the emotions happiness, pleasure, sorrow, and love. The first, happiness, is Whitaker as a pencil pusher who gets in deep with mobster Fingers. Second is pleasure, following Finger's enforcer and seer of the future Brendan Fraser. He's put in task of taking care of Fingers' trouble prone nephew Tony (Emile Hirsch). This segment is the best, and probably the only one I would give a pass. Third, Sorrow follows new pop sensation and her relationship with Fraser's mob enforcer, and the trouble their relationship brings. Finally, love follows a doctor trying to save a friend he loves deeply. Given that Happiness and Love begin and end the film, their serious weaknesses damage the film. I was looking to come around after Pleasure, but was only slowly let down by Sorrow, and slammed into the ground by Love.
  Lee may have an interesting future ahead of him, maybe. His direction is solid, even if it is nothing unique. He's clearly a product of modern filmmaking, which I must say is becoming rather boring in all of its hyperness. This is not a lazy film, nor is it without ambition. But that is no excuse for its pretentiousness or its bad writing. I hope that Lee can make somthing better in the future. His direction suggests he can make good - not great - but good films. That is, if he can get over his own back patting stage to realize what he thinks is profound is actually rather banal.

  bort16

  The Air I Breathe made its rounds on the small circuit over the last year gathering a small but devoted fanbase who felt that it really was a great discovery. Now there is always a crowd out there for films like this one, often because said films are made by people with similar sentiments. Alot of these smaller films get passed by without legitimate justification - the great Shotgun Stories for example. Other ones get passed by for good reason.
  So what kind of film am I speaking of? Pretentious ones - more specifically, pretentious films that think they are greatly profound.
  The Air I Breathe most certainly thinks its profound, when in reality its actually rather banal. Lee might have some good films in him, but this is not it. Its terribly written, terribly heavy handed, and its profound insights are little more than cornball and shallow second rate prose.

  posted 39 days ago
• 
  I recommend you see...

  A Short Film About Killing

  by edwin

  "Since Cain, no punishment has proved an adequate remedy."
  
  A soon to be lawyer responds to the debate on capital punishment with this quote at his exam. The older lawyers seem pleased and do not need to be told who the source of those words are. And so we are not told. Kieslowski, one of the greatest of all filmmakers, made a habit of this in his films, he never tells us anything we don't need to know, even when we think we need to know. In the Double Life of Veronique he never tells us why there are two women who look exactly alike, both have heart problems, why one feels the loss of the other without ever having met her or knowing of her, or why all this happens despite no relation (perhaps other than spiritual) whatsoever. We want to know the answer, but what good would that do? If we got it we'd likely be left dissapointed. Whats left unsaid sometimes speaks the loudest.
  
  In A Short Film About Killing Kieslowski never really goes into details about why a young man brutally murders a Taxi Driver one afternoon. We find out details from his past, but the closest we get to finding out why he did this is why he lives in the city now. In Kieslowski's world, chance dictates the day - although it is not necessarily random. The characters in the film seem to be on a path of fate - the young lawyer, the young man, and the middle aged taxi driver. They are floating down a path, presented with various different paths, which unfortunatly for all involved are never treaded on. The taxi driver is the best example of this. He has a mean streak, if not for anything but his own enjoyment. Early on a young couple wait for him to finish washing his taxi. He finishes and simply drives off leaving them behind, seemingly pleased with himself. Later he sees a drunk man coming out of a pub with the help of his friend, instead of taking the fare he immediatly drives away before the men can get in the cab. This mean spirited actions lead him on a path to his death. If only he had took the couple the young man wouldn't have ended up in his car; if only he decided to be a good samaritan and take the drunken fare, he would have never ended up with his killer in the car. But alas he chooses to ignore the escapes and alas he is killed.
  The film is clear about what its trying to say in its main message: Capital punishment is wrong and unjust. Fate lead to the death of the taxi driver, but it is the state's vengeance for a man it could care less about that leads to the murder of the young man (yes, capital punishment is murder, no matter how you spin it, Sorry Weber).
  What is incredible about this film is that whereas other anti-capital punishment films show that the offender has his very clear reasons for committing his crime, tugging at our heart strings with murder in some form of defense, Kieslowski doesn't allow us that luxery. No, instead the taxi driver, a jerk he may be, is killed in cold blood without any legitimate justification. That is a bold step to make in a film against capital punishment. David Gale should have taken lessons. That the film makes this work is perhaps its greatest strength. We see that the young man regrets what he did, he's scared, he's human - not a monster. Kieslowski makes the final scenes genuinely heart breaking without having to tell us why.
  Yes, it is the lack of reason which makes A Short Film About Killing Work, just as the lack of answers is what makes The Double Life of Veronique Work. Fate has its way with us, yet grants us opportunities to deny it without ever acknowledging them. What a cruel game life is.
  Oh, and if you must know, that unsourced quote with which I opened this review is derived from Marx in 1853: "...there is such a thing as statistics ? which prove with the most complete evidence that since Cain the world has neither been intimidated nor ameliorated by punishment"

  bort16

  One of my favorite Kieslowski films (really, are any of them not though?).
  It does somthing that few other anti-capital punisment movies would dare to do: not give us an explanation why someone commits a coldblooded murder. That is a bold move. David Gale should have saw this and taken notes.

  posted 41 days ago
• 
  I recommend you see...

  The Grand

  by edwin

  Zak Penn, writer of various superhero pictures, makes his return to the directors chair in this wildly uneven but nevertheless entertaining improvisational comedy.
  The film chronicles various poker players as they try to win big at The Grand Tournament in Las Vegas. Among the players are: Jack Fero (Woody Harrelson), a substance abusing womanizer looking to win the 10 million dollar pot to save his grandfather's passed down casino; Larry and Lanie Schwartzman (David Cross and Cheryl Hines), brother and sister competitors (also involved is their father and Lanie's husband, Fred, played by Ray Romano); Andy Andrews (Richard Kind), an amateur who has somehow made it all the way to the tournament, apparantly on luck; Harold Melvin (Chris Parnell), a lonely Dune quoting genius who lives with his mother; Deuce Fairbanks (Dennis Farina), the oldtimer with many stories to tell about the old Las Vegas; and The German, a hardcore, animal sacrificing, quote poet played by who else but Werner Herzog. Various other actors, directors, and real life poker pros have cameos, some good, some just meh.
  There really isn't a whole lot to say for the plot, other than its about a poker tournament. Characters have their various story lines: Jack trying to save his casino; Larry and Lanie trying to deal with their overbearing father; Fred trying to get Manning on Yahoo! Fantasy Football; Harold and Andy have a budding friendship; Deuce, the German, and Jack's grandfather used to pal around, etc. Its mostly filler for comedy and those times where poker tables go on break. There are moments when the backstories have some very funny comedy (such as the relationship between Lanie and Fred); also very funny is Michael McKeen as the man trying to swindle Jack out of his casino. Other times the comedy is just a bit flat, backstory or front story. There are moments where jokes don't flow well, and certain jokes seem to be coming from another movie entirely. But overall, the laughs are consistantly there, not always big but grinworthy. Besides, McKean and Herzog, for the amount of screen time they have, are almost worth the price of admission alone. Brett Ratner, of all people, also has a couple good moments that I suspect might be either hit or miss with most audiences.
  Penn is obviously going for a Spinal Tap or Guest-like rendering of poker tournaments. The dry wit is there, but so are the obvious go-for-laugh moments. Its not nearly as subtle as it could have been. The actors though mostly all deliver. Commendable in particular is the performance by Gabe Kaplan, pro poker player and Welcome Back Kotter alumnus, as Seth Schwartzman. He's annoying, as he was meant to be, but also pretty funny. Ray Romano is also very funny as the neurotic lighting strike survivor Fred.
  So improvisational was the set that Penn stated that they even improved the final hand. They of course gave extra cash to players they wanted to win, but apparantly things didn't pan out.
  Whatever the case, The Grand is overall a hit or miss affair that hits more often than it misses. I enjoy the impromptu nature of improv comedy, and the actors are clever enough to hit the funny in short bursts.

  bort16

  Its a hit or miss affair, but hits more often than it misses. If you're interested I suggest giving it a rent.

  posted 41 days ago
• 
  I recommend you see...

  The Happening

  by edwin

  For all my apparant movie snobbery, I will admit that I have a prediliction for disaster flicks. My fascination with natural (or somthing like it) disasters on celluloid has lead me to give generally favorable reviews to otherwise not really strong films. I debated myself whether to go with a 2.5 star review or the positive 3 stars. I at first chose 2 1/2. I slept on it, and decided that I was interested enough in The Happening to kick it up half a star. This review is one of guilty pleasure, and maybe against my critical judgement.
  This movie is preposterous, hammy, cheesy, corny and silly. Despite that, its execution is clever, and its premise is terrifying and, to me, extremely intriguing.
  An unknown natural disaster is affecting the North Eastern United States, beginning in New York City and spreading throughout the region. Eliott (Mark Whalberg) is a high school science teacher, who lectures his students on the dissapearance of bees all over the country. He's soon after pulled out of his class room and informed that there is some kind of "event" happening. This event causes people to become dissorientated, attacks their motor skills as they stand still or walk backwards, then triggers them to kill themselves. Suicides come en masse and no one is safe - other than animals. Eliott, his wife Alma (Deschanel), his friend Julien (Leguizamo) and his daughter hop a train to Pennsylvania in hopes that this "event" wont' be happening there. Of course it moves there, and they're train is stopped in the middle of nowhere after it loses contact with everyone. Stranded, they attempt to flee west, where the event is not happening. Julien, frantic over his wife who is in Princeton, heads off to find her, leaving his daughter with Eliott and Alma, who are struggling to keep their marriage afloat.
  The origins of the "event" are not really in the end officially determined - its proposed that the plants have released toxins as a self-defense mechanism; others propose its an army experiment gone awry, to which the government refuses to comment upon. The plant theory is the most precedent among the group. This of course equals trouble since they're stuck in the middle of nowhere surrounded by forestation.
  The Happening goes to some pretty extreme, and pretty silly lengths to get its message across. Some of the suicides are so over the top they're comical - I'm still unsure if Shyamalan was in on this little joke or not. There are other moments which seem to be added for nothing more than shock value. The movie is rated R, and it earns it with a number of moments.
  Shyamalan certainly has a strong talent for direction and photography - the film shows that definatly - but he is deeply lacking in the writing department. Tracing back his films, there has always been a weakness in his writing - dialogue is often contrived and expositional when its unnecessary, dating from the Sixth Sense to Signs (both films which I like very much). Poor writing hurts The Happening, and there a few cringe worth moments of foolishness. There are scenes where it sounds as if voices were dubbed in later to explain what we just saw in case we didn't pick up on it ourselves. There is a scene near the end that offers this method of clarification, where the problem isn't actually that it was explained through dialogue (it probably needed it) but the manner it was done. A shot cuts to outside of a house, and Eliott's voice cues to sum up what just happened in one exposition heavy sentence, end scene. I'm not suggesting that I necessarily have a better way to clear this up, but its done so poorly that I simply must be possible. What comes after that is also extremely cliched and entirely tacked on for no reason other than sentimental posturing. This of course is the fault of the writing. Oh, and also get ready for people to say the word "happening" or some variation thereof at every chance.
  Nevertheless, Shyamalan's directing chops are still sharp, and there are some very effective moments throughout the film. The manner of how people are affected is not only interesting, but awsomely eery and creepy. There is something about seeing a entire park of people stop dead in their tracks and become disorientated that his a nerve. There are moments in the film where when these people stand still that it almost seems to take on the creepiness of a similar scene in a far differnet film. Alain Resnais's Last Year at Marienbad has a famous scene in which two people talk on balcony overlooking a garden at a hotel. The people in the garden stand entirely still as they cast shadows but plants and other fixtures cast none. I suspect that if you know this shot, it will make the scenes in The Happening that much creepier. The pacing of the movie (which has a fairly short run time) has been attacked as "too slow" and "nothing happens." I actually thought the pacing of the film was one of its strongest assets. It takes its time, and I enjoy that in a film.
  
  From what I've said here I'm really not justifying giving this a positive review, however its the premise of the film, which I think is so deeply interesting and truely scary, that keeps this afloat, but may also damn it at the same time. I will say it here and now that I am dissapointed, and frankly if it came out tomorrow that The Happening was being remade, I would jump to see it get a do-over. Either way, I was still entertained by this one.

  bort16

  A very mild half reccomendation if you're interested in this kind of movie. Diaster flicks seem to be my guilty pleasure. That combined with the very interesting premise of The Happening is just barely enough for me to kind of maybe sorta suggest you see it. It has some moments of genuine creepiness and terror, while nevertheless having some genuine moments of "really? you thought that was a good choice to put in a movie?"

  posted 50 days ago
• 
  I recommend you see...

  Shotgun Stories

  by edwin

  Having been ignored and pushed aside by big studios and distributers, and overshadowed by big money makers, Jeff Nichols Shotgun Stories has gotten limited release. As much as I enjoy finding the hidden gems, it always makes me a little bit sad to see a film so great passed over. Filmed primarily in 2004, and released last year, Shotgun Stories has gotten a nice word of mouth and critical following. Roger Ebert announced it would play at his Overlooked Film Festival, and recently published a 4 star review.
  The film centers on Son Hayes and his brothers, Boy and Kid. They were given their names by their alcoholic deadbeat father, who birthed them, left them as if they were never born, then reformed his ways, stopped drinking, became a born again Christian and fathered a new family. The boys were left, as Son says, to be "raised by a hateful woman," who taught them to hate their fathers new family, and they do. When their father dies, the brothers show up at his funeral, make an impromptu speech, which the new sons, with proper names, do not take kindly to.
  Writer/director Nichols handles his film with the greatest of care. Not a word of dialogue is uttered that seems inplausible. Nothing is wasted on exposition. For instance, what we know about the Father, we learn only through the brief speech made by Son at the funeral. It feels real, it feels to the point, and best of all, in a few short words it never feels like exposition. Nichols takes his time, never rushing, but wasting nothing. The end result is a visceral experience.
  The actors all deliever excellent performances, especially Michael Shannon, who seems to be off and on in alot of roles. Here he is definatly on.
  This film gets under your skin, takes you into the world of these characters and never lets you go. There are deaths in the film, and when it happens midway through, a sense of loss, of sadness, and of rage is felt by the audience for the remainder.
  It never boils down into a standard revenge film, but simply muddles in the mundane and sad lives of its characters. Although this film exudes a sense of sadness that few other films could aspire to, its not depressing. I would not dare reveal the films resolution, only to say that it comes sensibly, after a moment of great realization.
  Nichols shows himself to be a serious filmaker to watch in the future. This is a profound and wise film. And a great one too.

  bort16

  I know a few of you want to see this. And hopefully this will inspire you to continue to seek it out.
  this is a great film, and certainly will place very highly on my list of the years best.

  posted 56 days ago
• 
  I recommend you see...

  A Night to Remember

  by edwin

  Of the many films made about the Titanic disaster, A Night to Remember stands at the top. While it doesn't have the pure visual replication carried out by Cameron's 1997 epic, it nevertheless creates an incredible replication of the great ship, especially considering that this was made in 1958. Roy Ward Baker's film, based on Walter Lord's book also spares the 3 hour schmooze fest and melodrama that hurt Cameron's film.
  A Night to Remember is akin to a police procedural, except you know, about a rapidly sinking boat conducted by civilians and crewmen. The film is set on no one in particular, but rather follows the exploits of various members of its cargo, officers, captains, rich folk, poor folk. Watching this one, you can certainly see the elements Cameron borrowed and suggested at in his version. Little time is wasted getting to know everyone, and in no time at all the great ship has hit and iceburg. It is comparable to the second half of Cameron's film - which I always felt should be the point of a Titanic film.
  The effects used for the sinking ship are outstanding, although viewers certainly will notice that the sinking ship sinks in a manner that we're not accustomed to. No we do not see the ship break in half here. That information was not officially gathered until the 1980s when the ship's remains were found (although some survivors had recalled seeing the ship break in half, the official story was that she went down intact).
  The film of course is subject to some fine hammy 50s acting (Molly Brown here is the worst offender) but overall this version is very subdued, aiming for an overall documentary like retelling.
  
  If you are looking for a Titanic without the 2 hour melodramatic prelude, you'ld be well to spend sometime with A Night to Remember.

  bort16

  The top of the Titanic films, in my opinion

  posted 56 days ago
• 
  I recommend you see...

  I Am Cuba

  by edwin

  Quick Review:
  A breathtaking marvel of cinematography. Mikhail Kalatozov's I am Cuba, a joint production between Soviet and Cuban filmmakers, remains an astounding visual success, with its inventive and freewheeling camera style that went on to influence so many. So legendary is the films style that a great many filmmakers today likely do not even realize that they've been influenced by it through the work of other directors such as Martin Scorcese.
  The film, a hyper stylised perhaps propaganda film (although the film was berated on both sides - by the Russians as too sympathetic to Americans, by the West as entirely unsympathetic to Americans), it flows (and really is there a better word to describe this?) through a series of vignettes, dealing rebellious youths to slimy members of Western borgeoisie.
  One could discuss the incredible long and free form shots, moving up and down buildings, in and out of water, soaring over crowded city streets - it is a technical marvel, at its release and even still today. The stories often get left out of discussion because of this, but it should be noted that they are quite powerful and moving, and propaganda or not, they express some profound tellings of the eploitative relationship between the wealthy American business class and the Bastista dictatorship.
  Whatever your political leaning, I am Cuba is an unquestioned masterpiece and innovator of the visual language of cinema.

  bort16

  Come on folks... Way too many of you have 'not interested' in this unquestioned masterpiece. Whatever your political leaning, anyone considering themselves true lovers of film must seek this one out.
  
  Thankfully there is a lovely new edition of the film out with extensive bonus features, replacing the unacceptable previous edition admirly presented by Scorsese and Coppola. While I'm glad they got that version out for people to see, it was pretty terrible - bare bones with two audio dubs that play at the same time. That's the version I own, but now that the new print is out there, seek it out. If you can only find the crummy edition, watch that one anyway.

  posted 57 days ago
• 
  I recommend you see...

  Bad Boys II

  No rating. by edwin

  I've been trying lately only to review movies that I consider to be great movies, or random new releases that I get time to review. And so, this review is different. It's a movie that was made three years ago, and its the exact opposite of great. I hated this movie so much that months after finally watching the whole thing (I had to watch this "movie" in pieces because I felt as if I was going to have to stab my eyes out) I feel I can finally review this thing.
  
  Will Smith and Martin Lawrence are Miami cops cracking down on a Cuban drug king, played by Jordi Molla. Martin Lawrences sister, Syd (Gabrielle Union) is also involved undercover in a federal investigation, and of course things get freaky with her and Will Smith's character. Blah blah blah, roll the clichés and super "cool" dialog, insert a chase scene that sees about a million cars get destroyed while Will Smith drives his Ferarri through the carnage at 200 mph unscathed, slap on some random catch phrases and a cheesy ending and BANG, you have Bad Boys II. Doesn't sound like much? It isn't.
  
  You could say that the movie is just mindless action, but to say that it is mindless would excuse its insulting of morality and intelligence to the viewer. If it would be mindless it wouldn't know better. Michael Bay does know better, but that doesn't stop Bad Boys II from being cruel and down right offensive to mindless movies everywhere. The movie thinks that it's being funny when it's just being cruel, and one scene in particular made me cringe and made me want to run out and burn posters of Will Smith and Martin Lawrence. That scene involves the pair driving their fancy Hummer through a shanty town on a hillside. We're talking a slum, where the poorest people you could imagine live. The Hummer plows through the houses tearing them apart. This would have killed dozens of poor people. But do they care? No, they're driving their big yellow Hummer, having a ball. Sure they try to say that the village had been making drugs, but so what? I'm sure the kids and innocents who lived in those houses might have something to say about that.
  
  This movie left me with a bad taste in my mouth that shows up every time I hear someone say "Bad," or "Boys," or "2." That this piece of cinematic junk has 6.1 rating on IMDb is mind blowing. It's a testament to the stupidity of the modern movie audience. I never had to pay to see this movie, yet after seeing the whole thing, I still felt like someone owed me a whole lot of money.

  bort16

  Yes, zero stars

  posted 59 days ago