My Favorite Movies

This one might be my favorite movie of all time. It's absolute perfection

I love you, Mr. Polanski

Love Lars Von Trier

I want to have passionate sex with David Lynch. And then I want to wake up in a red room with a giant and a midget and think my name is Cassandra and live in an alternate reality for awhile. Then live in the Hills with Justin Theroux and have more sex and wake up again and then play jazz music with Bill Pullman and then wake up in prison and wake up again with a giant telling me I am Laura Palmer and that owls are not what they seem.
Dammit, David Lynch is my hero.

I give this one three stars and put it on my favorite movie list because it was the first film to come out in years that I have actually liked enough to give that kind of credit to.

Huffman was wonderful and I was touched by the story. I like to see these types of films get mainstreamed.

I don't need anything but this movie. Really. Oh, and a bathtub gin martini with drunk Carol Burnett,

Love his early work and his commentary is wonderful.

Absolutely beautiful. Great score. I LOVE this film

Hilarious. Any film that includes glory holes and musical montages about penises is fine by me.

Wow. Just Wow. I was so anxious about seeing this film that it was imperative that I went by myself. The merging of Sondheim and Burton was a risky one – I wasn’t sure that I would be pleased with the results. While I love both Sondheim and Burton in entirely different ways, I was extremely concerned that this film would be over saturation for me – mixing two very important parts of my life (kind of like when you introduce your parents to your significant other for the first time). I knew in advance that I would be overly critical of Burton’s adaptation of Sondheim’s score and any and all changes made.
So before you are all questioning what I think – here it is – I loved this film. I really, really loved it. It has taken me a long time to write a review because I’ve had quite a bit of sentiment, history and emotion to process.
I’ll start with Depp as Sweeney. He was good. He was very good. But that was to be expected. Depp has become the new DeNiro or Pacino. Always giving astounding performances that are fun to watch if not over the top. Depp’s Sweeney was all about revenge. I had no compassion for his character, which worked for me perfectly well (I felt similarly about Cerveris in the recent Broadway production). Depp is beautiful and creepy to look at. Though I did think his characterization was very internalized – not that it was a bad thing at all – his Sweeney was brutal and seething and angry. But I have seen this done before. And his singing was very good. I don’t understand these critics who say that his voice was weak.
For me, the most beautiful moments in the film were watching Helena Bonham Carter as Mrs. Lovett. Her voice, namely her lack of formal vocal training, worked in such a powerful and Brechtian way. Her voice was reminiscent of Sally in Nightmare Before Christmas – passionate and heartfelt focusing more on the character than hitting the notes of Sondheim’s difficult score. Her facial expressions, and her ability to make Mrs. Lovett sexy without trying or vamping around onstage (like Patti Lupone) was so perfect. She was scary and sexy and for the first time I empathized with Mrs. Lovett and her unrequited love.

(also, ready what Sydney says)

Absolutely amazing. I could watch this over and over and over. It's an honor to spend three hours in David Lynch's mind.

Norma Desmond breaks my heart. Such a sad, sad story of a woman living in the past and unwilling to change with the times. Norma and Edie Beale are similar in so many ways -- stories about powerful women (possibly before their time) who have difficulty adapting with change both move me and upset me. "I am big. It's the pictures that got small".
It's probably scary that I identify with Swanson in this role.

I love the Edies!!!!

No, this film is not pronounced 'Syn-OH-Do-Chey', or 'Sin-Eh-Doch'

Synecdoche - (Sih-NECK-doh-kee)
The word "synecdoche" is derived from the Greek συνεκδοχή, from the prepositions συν- + εκ- and the verb -δέχομαι (accept), meaning originally the acceptance of a part of the responsibility for something.
Synecdoche is closely related to metonymy (the figure of speech in which a term denoting one thing is used to refer to a related thing); indeed, synecdoche is considered a subclass of metonymy. It is more distantly related to other figures of speech, such as metaphor.

And yes, the beginning of the film is set in Schenectady, NY. Just in case you were wondering. Indeed, Sarah A. who moonlights as a film reviewer/book critic/writer of her own damn opinions on what she considers 'art' needs to state this obvious title meaning outright. Get it? Got it? Good. So moving on.

'Synecdoche, NY' is the title of the film which has so far received mixed reviews, some of which have called this not only Kaufman's worst but one of the years' worst films. These critics clearly did not understand not only the literary genius of the script (it's 'great novel' worthy) but also apparently lacked an understanding of the visual and character oriented meta theatrical arc of the film. If this review of mine sounds obnoxious or pretentious, that does not mean that you won't enjoy this film, scenes from the film, pieces of the film, or even at least a few minutes. Minutes that you may grudgingly regret spending at 'Sarah's recommendation', but I promise you, weeks later you won't have forgotten those minutes.

And then there are critics who agree with me -- who firmly believe that Charlie Kaufman has added to his already thought provoking screenplay repertoire ('Being John Malkcovich', 'Adaptation', 'Eternal Sunshine' et al.) and in many ways far surpassed his lyrical and existential potential.

Either way, how can you not want to see a film that has it's viewers consumed in a love/hate relationship? A film that leaves theater goers either in in tears due to an existential panic attack or alternately in an inherent relief due to accepting and possibly overcoming these philosophical issues about the state of life and human relationships and art and connecting to people?

For me, personally, I experienced both sentiments (and yes, this film deserves at least several more viewings). I was completely enraptured, depressed, moved, angered, amused, and nervous. Yes, all within a 2 hour running time. I can honestly say that 'Synecdoche, New York' is one of the most powerful films I have ever seen and is climbing the charts as being one of my favorite films (again, it will require many more viewings, not unlike my theatrical experience with Lynch's 'Mullholland Drive').

Every other life relates to those encounters in the same way, depending on local conditions. Life's a stage, and we bit players upon it. Charlie Kaufman's "Synecdoche, New York" is a film that boldly tries to illustrate this universal process by using a director immersed in a production of indefinite duration on a stage representing his mind. Is he mentally sound? Well, let's start with the name Kaufman chose for the 'protagonist' (another brilliant and effortless performance by Phillip Seymour Hoffman) -- 'Caden Cotard'. Sound familiar? Flashback to Psych class in college -- Cotard's Syndrome--a rare neuropsychiatric disorder in which a person holds a delusional belief that he or she is dead or does not exist. Rarely, it can include delusions of immortality. It is named after Jules Cotard (1840–1889), a French neurologist who described the syndrome as having various degrees of severity, ranging from mild to severe. In a mild state, feelings of despair and self-loathing occur, however it is in the severe state that a person with Cotards actually starts to deny the very existence of the self.

Indeed, every written word, every spoken word, every image, every voice in this film has a deeper meaning. Bless you Charlie Kaufman for making a film that will encourage audience's to 'think' (good lord, have we forgotten how to do that?!?) If paying $11 for a movie means actually using your brain (and believe me, I have paid $11 to have some quite restful naps in films such as 'Dark knight', 'Pirates of the Caribbean', 'King Kong' and 'Napoleon Dynamite') is that not a good thing?

Many of my friends and coworkers were unmoved by the film and accused it of being confused, contradictory and unclear. Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly grades it "D plus" and has what I agree is a reasonable reaction to this film: "An artist makes a movie that is so labyrinthine and obscure, such a road map of blind alleys, such a turgid challenge to sit through that it sends most people skulking out of the theater -- except, that is, for a cadre of eggheads who hail the work as a visionary achievement." I do agree that he is speaking for a majority. Yet, I am an 'egghead' and I imagine there are more like me out there. Let's not forget, myself and my wonderfully brilliant film critic of a mother (who, as an aside also happened to laugh out loud several times during 'Blades of Glory') were possibly the only two people who were moved by the simplicity and 'black box' theatricality of Lars Van Trier's 'Dogville'. 'Synecdoche has some parallels to Von Trier. But more so possesses major similarities to Harold Ramis' 'Groundhog Day' (which, by the way also happens to be one of my all time favorite films).

Synecdoche is a film about what goes on in our everyday lives, made visual by the inspired set design, rooms on top of rooms, all containing separate activities, with the protagonist trying to satisfy, or direct, or obey or evade, or learn from, or receive solace from, the people in all of the rooms.

There is honestly nothing I can adequately write to 'review' this film. It is incapable of being reviewed. You have to see it for yourself. And I hope you do. And when you do, you better e-mail me what you thought. I think this film is a masterpiece.

According to the Kaufman's footnotes --

"Comparable to great fiction? Yes, with the same complexity and slow penetrability. Not complex as a strategy or a shortcoming. Complex because it interweaves and cross-refers, and every moment of apparent perplexity leads back somewhere in the movie to its solution. Some great fiction, like Ulysses or The Sound and the Fury or The Golden Bowl, was hypertext when hypertext wasn't a name, but only a need. Henry James seems the steadiest of hands, but underneath, his opening chapters are straining to touch the closing ones, and the middle hides concealed loyalties. And when he writes "intercourse," you never quite know what he means. Very hypertextual.

Why is the house always on fire, but nobody seems to notice it? Don't unhappy homes always seem like that? Aren't people always trying to ignore it?

The voice-over. Maybe the only time I've heard coughing in a voice-over."

That matte painting. Right. It moves."

I am so close to giving 'Coraline' 5 stars. A few small details hold me back. I was pleasantly surprised that Henry Selick not only kept my favorite images from the book (the never ending theater with the dog audience, the carnivale-esque mouse circus, and the walking through fog and mist into a space where everything disappears - only to walk back to the house), but created such stunning, scary, haunting and beautiful images of these scenes. The entire movie was so visually appetizing that I am eager to see it again in the theater. Selick managed to stay mostly true to Neil Gaiman's beautiful story. With two major exceptions. 1) I wish he would have set the story in England. Dakota Fanning gave an excellent voice to an 'American' Coraline -- a bossy and petulant 11 year old transplant from Michigan (yes, the young Southern Ms. Fanning even has the midwestern accent absolutely perfect!). It's scary just how realistic of an 'American' 11 year old Coraline actually is. But had Selick decided to stay true to Gaiman's original English setting, I have no doubt Dakota Fanning would have done an equally wonderful job. 2) I was extremely perturbed by the addition of the character 'Wybourne'. I thought this was extremely unnecessary -- in the book Coraline manages just fine on her own and does not need a boy to 'help' her out. But other than those two minor qualms, I thought this was a perfect film. Keith David as the voice of the Cat exceeded my highest of expectations. And even Terri Hatcher held her own as 'The Other Mother'. But even without such great casting, Henry Selick has trumped Tim Burton in every way imaginable, and reminded his loyal audience just how pivotal a role he was in the brilliance of Burton's earlier films (before they had the fallout after Nightmare and before James and the Giant Peach). Burton is a strong storyteller -- I do think that there was an emotional content to the character of Jack in Nightmare Before Christmas that Coraline lacked. But image wise? It's all about Henry Selick. It's no coincidence that the house in Coraline is a direct homage to the house in Beetlejuice. The ghost children, the garden, Coraline's bedroom, the highlights in Coraline's hair, the subtle gleam of the buttons in 'The Other Mother's' eyes -- Selick is an animation genius. I'm eager for him to find another dark childrens' tale to adapt into a film.

The only film I've ever seen twice in a row in the theater

Mamet dialogue plus great story plus Steve Martin, Campbell Scott and Rebecca Pidgeon = perfect for me.

Christopher Guest + Dog shows = brilliance

Marge, YOU like everybody

I identified with this film. Please don't press me for details.

This gets a mighty 4.5 stars from me. That says a lot.

Love Helena Bonham Carter. Based on a fantastic novel which has several Lynchian elements, yet still marvelously directed by Burton

One of Depp's best rolls under Burton's fantastic direction. Oh, and cheers to Ed Wood himself who made this story possible!

Noah Baumbach rocks. Great soundtrack.

I didn't expect to love this as much as I did. This will be my students in another few years. Or *gulp* possibly even my unborn children since I'll probably still be here in this same UWS apartment.

Jeliza Rose is my hero. A fabulous novel by Mitch Cullem that Terry Gilliam turned into a haunting and magical film

Young Johnny Depp. Young Lili Taylor. Accordians, fish, the desert and Dunaway. I love this film.

Excellent

4 stars from me. Because talking about love is like dancing about architecture

I rewatched this film for the first time in four years in preperation for Fay Grim (which is in my netflix queue). And still, I think this film is incredible. Hal Hartley embodies the indie film rise -- meaning that he found a team of actors who work together so, so well and who work from his (very lengthy and wordy) script and take the roles seriously. It would have been an easy to play these roles ironically or to make a farce out of them, but Hartley and his cast have found the perfect balance of humor and honesty which is what makes this film so powerful and heartbreaking. The general theme is something that has been covered numerous times in other films (ie. what is art? who is to argue about taste, one man's trash is another man's treasure, etc) but Hartley finds the time (2 hours and 17 minutes, exactly) to really explore his ideas and he allows the actors to take their time with the difficult dialogue (which is something that almost never fully satisfies me in shorter, mainstream films). This film is liking watching a great and unknown off broadway play -- it's very 'stagey' (in a good way) not only the literal staging but Hartley's use of sound and dialogue as sound. This is a film that always stays with me and I haven't seen anything recently (possibly since American Beauty) that has had that effect.

Frank the Bunny = Good Stuff

Doesn't even come close to the brilliance of the novel but still, Van Sant made a solid and well done movie taken from such a difficult text to adapt to the screen. Uma Thurman is a wonderful Sissy. But Rain Phoenix as Bonanza Jellybean was extremely disappointing. Van Sant captured the wackiness of the novel, I loved his bright color scheme and Robbins narration.

I can officially add WALL-E to my list of all time favorite films. I am so glad I saw this in the theater, normally I don't see a lot of animated films (even Pixar), I get enough 'child entertainment' being a teacher, but WALL-E is did not at all strike me as an animated children's film. Much like 'Babe Pig In the City' (a film where children were leaving the theater in tears), WALL-E contained many disturbing and graphic images, yet still was able to remain chaste to it's 'G' rating. And this is what makes WALL-E so special -- children and adults interprate the post apocalyptic images differently. The visuals in this film are so beautiful that at times I felt like I was looking at a piece of art, rather than watching a story on screen (I love the opening with the juxtaposition of the musical number from 'Hello Dolly' with the bleak image of the future of the earth), and I also particularly appreciated the credits which give a wonderfully charming depiction of art history. I was completely smitten with robot WALL-E himself, his personality, his character, his will, his drive, his 'love', his ability to feel empathy and kindness. And how all of this was conveyed in his eyes and his movements through animation -- it still takes my breath away. The overall story was touching and plausible, perhaps the social commentary wasn't subtle but I was never annoyed. Only moved. I would definitely see this again!