The Visitor

In today's global state, the issue of migration has become a heated debate. Thanks in part to it's promise of the 'American Dream', the United States has become the primary settling zone for illegal immigration. To some, immigration is a major issue along the home front. To others, the basic rights of individual freedoms that the country was founded on supersede other issues. Either way, it's become a political debate that figures only escalate as world populace grows.
The Visitor is about a passive University prof who undergoes a journey of self-discovery when he comes across an illegal pair of immigrants living in his New York apartment. Richard Jenkins stars as the lead and was nominated for a Best Actor award at the Oscars last year. Rightfully so. Jenkins, perhaps best known for getting his head beat in with a tire iron in Burn After Reading, portrays his characters numerous insecurities with relative ease and subtlety. Haaz Sliemen, Dani Jekesai Guirira, and Hiam Abbass excel in supporting roles. Slieman and Guirira play the couple squatting in Jenkins' apartment. Slieman is a happy and accepting human being, so his character progression is that much more painful as the story goes on. Abbass plays his mother, and she too is excellent. This is ultimately a character driven story. The writing is excellent. More importantly, it displays patience not accustomed to most films made these days (read: quality films).
In a funny way, the fact that the majority of the main characters in The Visitor are foreign plays to the strength of the films message. It's about acceptance. It's about understanding people before you pass judgement. The performances of the actors, who until now, have really not been accepted or understood by western audiences, plays to its favor.

Vanilla Sky

Over the years, it has become a common thematic tool. It used to be that films told their stories linearly. Put simply, the events of the films are placed in a straight time line. Like with many things, it was only time before the film industry figured out new ways to tell their stories. People forget that a film is like a book. Each chapter is different. Each scene is different. Moving the chapters, or scenes, out of order but in a manner that still tells the story creates a new form of storytelling. Unfortunately, there are those who don't understand how to rearrange the scenes in a manner that makes sense. In those cases, you get, well, nonsense.
Vanilla Sky is the story of a wealthy playboy who's life is thrown into chaos when a jilted lover decides to drive her car off a bridge....with him inside. As a spoiler, this is hardly a movie that can be interpreted as simply as that. Tom Cruise stars in the lead role and it's his performance that controls the majority of the film. It's both detrimental and beneficial. Mr. Cruise is truly an admirable businessman. He knows, almost better than anyone, what roles work for him. Check his resume and he consistently plays a cocky man who is humbled and has to build himself back up. Vanilla Sky is no different. He is humbled alright. Humbled hard. Therein lies an issue. Cruise is not a sturdy enough actor to best portray the depths to which his character falls. Into the third act though, his performance actually comes into focus much better. His overacting may have actually had reason.
Vanilla Sky is a story told both linearly and non-linearly. Certain sequences are linear. Some are not. Some work. And some don't. At the end of the day though, Vanilla Sky is a thoroughly thought-invoking film. It's storytelling is unique and effective whether it's linear or non-linear. Or to you, it could just be nonsense.

Alien3

There was once a time when sequels were rare. Original films were what studios invested in and developed. Today, franchises are commonplace. Sequels are what commonly generate the most profit for major studios. It used to be that actors signed multi-picture contracts to star in different films for one studio. Now actors sign multi-picture deals to play one character for one studio. Franchises have the advantage of building a fan base. This gives new films in the franchise instant interest. A useful tool.
The Alien saga is one that has spanned nearly three decades, featuring four main films and a spin off franchise. It made a star out of Sigourney Weaver. It features elements of action, thriller, horror and drama genres. Basically it's as bankable a franchise as there is. Alien3 is considered by many to be where the franchise went sour. Since that film, each entry in the franchise has been mediocre at best. However, this is where I disagree. I find Alien3 to be a vastly underrated film. The theatrical release of the film is the one most people have seen. It is also the version that is what people say it is. The original cut is actually quite intriguing. It does away with the 'alien-vision' of the theatrical cut. It's longer as well, with some additional scenes and some of the theatrical scenes redone. The result is a much greater study of character and human behavior. We get a much better sense of the people involved and understand why they act the way they do. For example, Charles S. Dutton is a much more powerful character. His convictions play out more strongly which is punctuated by his characters fate at the conclusion of the film. As well, how the scenes play out with Ripley discovering she is carrying the Queen is much more profound. Her inner turmoil is more defined.
Franchises are becoming the lifeblood of the profit-driven film industry. Studios, for good reason, care more about making money than original work. That's ok. The problem is that the films play into profit-driven conventions. They are often cliche and thrill driven. This is where they fail. Most films would be met with greater critical and public approval if they are just as often left alone.

The Shawshank Redemption

Didn't watch it. Thought about it. Still overrated.

Sand (Dutch title: Zand)

I am no expert when it comes to short films. I admit as much. I do feel versed enough to make a healthy, functional critique of the form. There are some elements of short films that make it a unique form. For one, short films are often lower-budget which both limits and frees the features of the medium. It means films are often simpler, more character based but also encourages innovation for filmmakers who want to achieve certain imagery but do not have the financial means. Shorts often have to achieve their goal in a shorter (no terribly bad pun intended) time, which is difficult to do and a credit to filmmakers.
Sand (Zand) is the story of Luke, a divorced but goodhearted father to Isabel, who bonds with his daughter while working his sand trucking job. Director Joost van Ginkel does an excellent job developing a father-daughter relationship that is as beautiful as it is tragic. Luke is the kind of father every child should have, but unfortunately not every child gets. Isabel's mother is not as kind, and when Luke discovers this, he makes a poor long-term decision which leads to a wonderful short-term joy as he and Isabel spend a night together. van Ginkel does a tremendous job building up the emotional connections so that every pain that Luke feels, the viewer feels just the same. This is an excellent work where a human relationship can be an artistic narrative and not simply the latter.
Short films are a wonderfully versatile version of pictures. They can be done like extended music videos, short stories, or more expansive commercials. Sometimes even as one chapter of a larger story. The options for how to make a short film are, quite honestly, greater than a feature length. Not to mention, if you're strapped for time they're, well, shorter.
Sand (Zand)
DIRECTOR Joost van Ginkel, Netherlands, 2008, 21 MIN
When Luuk, a goodhearted father, discovers a horrific secret about his daughter he slowly loses control. Zand is a compelling and romantic story about Luuk and his daughter Isabel who both like the feel of sand.

He Got Game

It's difficult to determine what filmmakers or films are of the 'groundbreaking' nature. Based on things like opinion or country of origin, films or people can often be overlooked or over hyped. Or simply forgotten until years later when the public gets a clue. More often than not, groundbreaking films and people are immediately recognized by those in the know.
He Got Game is the story of a convict who is given a chance at freedom if he can convince his son, a high school basketball prodigy, to declare for the governors Alma mater. Ok, far fetched concept. No worries. He Got Game stars Denzel Washington, who's on his game as usual, as Jake Shuttlesworth and his son, Jesus, is played by actual NBAer Ray Allen. Spike Lee directs and the film is done in is his trademark style. The film explores the unifying power of sport or perhaps the unifying power of passions, which in this case is basketball. Jake has wronged his family because his passion ultimately clouded his good sense and the result put him in prison. Yet his passion for basketball, which he pushed onto his son, has given Jesus a future. Jesus struggles with the burden of his decision, however. It's an interesting dilemma. He has no one to ask for advice; the result of his fathers actions. The sport which was pushed on him and ruined his family is now providing him a future but one fraught with pitfalls. Keep an eye on the fantastic editing in the climatic scene in which Jake and Jesus both find ways to escape the prisons, literal and imagined, of their lives. It's done extremely well.
Spike Lee's first major film, Do The Right Thing, was a groundbreaking film in many ways. It was a powerful look at the social and cultural issues regarding race. However, it was his dynamic style that makes Do The Right Thing a landmark film. He Got Game is done in the same way, but the content is not the same. This is not to say it doesn't work. It does. It's a solid film. It just feels like Spike Lee lite.

The White Ribbon

It's always a treat being able to see a filmmaker at their best. Few things can be as inspiring, thought-provoking, or perception-changing as watching a film that is complete on every level. For some time, Michael Haneke has been that filmmaker for me. Haneke studied psychology, philosophy and theatrical sciences at the University of Vienna, Austria. His films reflect his specialty of study. The depth of his films is so much greater than any mainstream filmmaker it's less like a breath of fresh air and more like a gust.
The White Ribbon is a multi-tiered story focused on a small, pre-WW I German town. Told as a narrative by the town schoolteacher, the White Ribbon is about the dynamics between the adults and the children after a pair of crimes are committed. This is not a film for people who choose not to think about their movies. Most Haneke's aren't. This film perhaps more than any because it poses many questions but offers few answers, at least on the surface. The beauty of the film, as with any Haneke, is the 'answers' lie in the characters. How they act in relation to their circumstance and people around them provides the evidence the viewer needs. In this regard the film is as much a mystery story as a drama. Trying to figure out who commits the crimes that incite the story is part of the joy. Even though we're never privy to the answer. I feel as if I am doing a disservice to the film by not mentioning the camera work or the acting, but the character dynamics are such that on that basis alone this film excels.
As this critic is concerned, the situation in town is a microcosm of what led to the outbreak of WW I. The anger and envy of the classes, the age groups, and so on contributed to the shooting of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarejevo. Near the end of the film, the narrator emphasizes how the war came about. Is this to emphasize my theory? Perhaps. But with Haneke, one can never tell.

Boxcar Bertha

The Depression was one of the most important times in US history. It was arguably the catalyst for a number of events that would change the landscape of the country. People became desperate and desperate people do desperate things. The Depression gave birth to prohibition which, along with the desperation of the unemployed, in turn created a crime wave unlike any the country had seen. The rest, as they say, is history.
Boxcar Bertha is the story of a young woman (Barbara Hershey) who, with the death of her father, becomes a railroad traveler. She meets and falls in love with a railroad union man named Bill (David Carridine). They start robbing banks. If this sounds a bit like Bonnie and Clyde, well the stories are similar. In fact, you could call Boxcar Bertha, Bonnie and Clyde lite. Everything from the setting, the relationships, and the theme are similar. It's not a hell-raising good time that Bonnie and Clyde is and lacks the performances, but is nonetheless a functional film. It's more of a sexual discovery story of two young lovers than Bonnie and Clyde is, which is where it differentiates itself. The real excitement is watching a young Marty Scorsese at work. You can see elements of his style being ironed out, resulting in some brilliant moments.
Boxcar Bertha is an enjoyable flick to take in. There is a lot to analyze and take in. From it's comparisons to Bonnie and Clyde to watching the first Martin Scorsese studio picture, you get a good time.

Taking Woodstock

The late 1960's were perhaps one of the most important in American history. It spawned an entire generation of politically active people, who preached peace and love. Naturally this makes for great stories. Films made about this place and time in history can often be moving, reflective on current conditions.
Taking Woodstock is about a young man living in a tiny farming community called Whitelake, NY. To help save his parents struggling motel business he sets in motion the beginning of what would become Woodstock. Demetri Martin, he of his own Comedy Network show, is Elliott. The film starts as an offbeat comedy with dry gags here and there but no real sustaining humour. It gradually begins turning into a drama story as Elliott struggles with the anger of the locals, his disapproving mother, and the burden of bringing such a massive festival down on his home. This is where it starts to struggle. The film tries to maintain the dry humor as the story changes, but it happens in such a way that it's almost inconvenient that the film is trying to be funny. Not to mention there really is no story that comes out of the inciting incident. The film moves along at the same pace from start to finish, never growing emotionally. This makes the film drag. Not to mention it breaks from the mold to (glamorize??? emphasize??? approve of???) the drug scene in one virtually pointless scene. To some, it will come off as an 'epiphany' moment but accomplishes none of the emotional closure. In addition, there are many other plot points which offer absolutely nothing to development of our characters.
Taking Woodstock is a film that feels too long and goes too far from what it should have been. The characters hardly grow at all with the exception of a thin change in Elliott. I'm not sure what director Ang Lee was looking to accomplish. I hope what he had his head came out on screen so at least one person can get it.

Venus- Brits do it best

I've long held an opinion that non-American actors are the best. There have been all-time greats like Lawrence Olivier (England), current established vets such as: Christopher Plummer (Canada), Tom Wilkinson (England), Maggie Smith (England), bankable stars like Charlize Theron (Australia), Christian Bale (England), and Hugh Jackman (Australia), and a slew of young actors such as : Michael Sheen (England), Ryan Gosling (Canada), Clive Owen (England), not to mention your (annually dominant) Oscar players like Judie Dench, Hellen Mirren, and Kate Winslet. Put simply, the number of outstanding acting talent coming from overseas is staggering.
Venus is the story of an actor well into his senior years who becomes infatuated with the young niece of his best friend. The great Peter O'Toole plays Maurice, who even in his elder years is suave with the ladies. Jodie Whittaker plays Jessie, the object of Maurice's affections. Both shine in their parts. In particular, O'Toole is brilliant. It's a performance in which, as a viewer, every choice feels perfect. Not a single acting choice he makes feels out of place. O'Toole works his entire arsenal here. Whittaker does a splendid job, managing to take a character who appears very unlikeable throughout most the film into a sympathetic character.
Acting is one of the defining traits of any quality film. Bad acting can sink a great script. Great acting to lift even the most cruddy scripts. It just so happens that the Brits do it best. Why? It's hard to pinpoint but comes down to teaching. They are simply taught how to perform. And they do some brilliantly.

The Last King of Scotland- I am you

Biopics have always been a staple of film. They're pre-packaged stories that appeal to audiences because they actually happened. Most people remember the people and stories which make for very appealing cinema. It also appeals to audiences because it offers the opportunity to critic how accurately the characters are portrayed. Most people wouldn't care if Phillip Seymour-Hoffman played a gay writer in an original screenplay but as soon as he is cast as Truman Capote, it's a meaty role.
The Last King of Scotland is a story based on the reign of Ugandan dictator, Idi Amin. During his tenure, Amin was responsible for the deaths of more than 300,000 of his countries people. This story is told through the eyes of his personal physician, a Scottish med student played by James MacAvoy. The scenery is beautiful. As it should be. It still shocks me that a country that is so geographically stunning has been the grounds for hundreds of years of civil war. To the acting, James MacAvoy is very good as the young med student who finds himself thrust into the center of a madman's world. The transition he makes from an awe-inspired young man to a fearful one is excellent. Forrest Whitaker really captures the character of Idi Amin. He plays the part with a charming danger that at first is appealing but quicly (and violently) turns hostile.
For biopic fans, The Last King of Scotland has what you ordered. It doesn't reinvent the wheel by any means, but offers a solid take on the story and life of it's main character.

Theory of film critiquing

There is a certain talent for watching movies. Just the same as learning in school, watching films often enough builds an understanding of what works and what does not. Not everyone develops the eye, and that's where the difference lies. Like most anything, some people got it and some people don't.
One aspect of film critiquing that has bothered me for some time is the idea that a film is, 'good for what it is'. This is a cop-out. It is unfair to review a film based on other films of it's genre. Why? Because that puts the film in a box. Movies should be compared to all others. They should be compared to the art of filmmaking as a whole. To put that statement in perspective, let's say that (theoretically) someone could say Mama Mia is a good musical and give it a rating of 75%. At the same time, that same person could say Terminator Salvation is a basic action film and give it a rating of 60%. But if they had compared the overall quality against each other, Terminator Salvation is a superior film, just not as good in it's genre. You see what I mean? There is a point at which you simply cannot review a movie for 'what it is'. It is too irresponsible.
Another fault in film critiquing is trying to appease personal opinion. By saying, 'if you like action movies, you'll like this' is once again, irresponsible. There is a point at which personal taste and film quality cross. Think of it as an X and Y axis. There is a point at which opinion and quality meet. The area under which the two points meet is considered fair game for personal tastes. The area beyond where the two points meet is where tastes no longer can factor into the quality of the film. After that point, personal opinion is pointless because you simply can't review a movie based on what you like. For example, someone saying they think Jackie Brown sucked because it wasn't very action-packed. Well, that's not the point of Jackie Brown so what does it matter? If you are watching Jackie Brown expecting to see action, you obviously have a poor view of film.
I feel that the more and more I speak with people about film, the more frustrated I become. It's that these people don't understand what constitutes a good film. The same way I wouldn't try to compare Kanye West to Frank Sinatra because I know so little about what makes either great, people should not do the same with movies.

13 Going On 30- girl time

Commonly known as the 'chick flick', movies that appeal strictly to the female demographic often have a very specific style. The lead is always a strong woman. Some of the emphasis of the film includes love, friendship, and fashion (ok, maybe not that last part). Females are attracted to these stories and for every reason: they're more often than not, relatable.
13 Going On 30 is the story of a just-turned 13 year old who, unsatisfied with her current social situation, wishes to be 30 years old and POOF she wakes up 17 years older. She's attractive, successful, and fashionable. But she's also a complete bitch. Jennifer Garner is the lead and as chick flick leads go, she's very good. Unlike most leads, she brings remarkably good brand of physical comedy to the role. Which really is not surprising because of her filmographic history of starring in action pieces. She's also a very charming actress, which makes her naturally likeable. The supporting roles are not bad, notably a funny performance by Andy Serkis (he of Gollum fame), but normally solid Mark Ruffalo seems like he's mailing it in. The story is passable but not original. The writing is a little predictable but Garner carries most of it.
Chick flicks generally drive dudes away in droves. They have good reason, chick flicks are naturally unappealing in every way. The fear of your girlfriend saying, "Let's watch a cute movie!" is likened to being told your cheque just bounced. However, 13 Going On 30 wouldn't be the death sentence. Garner does a superb job, and it doesn't hurt she's attractive. Women will hae a fun time with this movie.

Fargo- ya? Oh ya.

Since their breakout film Blood Simple was released in 1984, the Coen brothers have been two of the more unique filmmakers of our time. They are a rare breed of filmmakers who have their own unique style and trademark that is recognizable to most moviegoers. Yet when they dabbled in alternative genres they do so seamlessly. Few filmmakers out there can say the same for themselves.
Fargo is the story of a man going through some financial difficulties who hires some small-time criminals to kidnap his wife in order to extort his father-in-law. When the proverbial shiznat hits the fan, a pregnant police deputy sets out to solve the crime. To most, this film comes off as a straight-up black comedy. It's oddball characters and situations seem to be straight out of a comedy 101 course. However, when you break down the film to it's bare parts this is more of a crime drama than comedy. The trick is in the writing. Fargo is a story about what small-time, average people would do when they become caught up in circumstances outside their understanding. Then you add in the Minnesota setting and all of a sudden our characters talk in funny accents and say funny things. But keep in mind this is how people talk in Minnesota. The cast are excellent as they play the characters very straight-laced but take full advantage of the perfect writing. In one memorable scene, William H. Macy practices what he's going to say when he calls his father-in-law to tell him about his wife being kidnapped. Wouldn't your average person do something similar? He's no pro, he's just a guy who's done something a little over his head. He has no idea what he's doing so he practices. It just so happens this situation is very funny. See what I'm getting at? Or the scene where the wife, in an attempt to elude her captors, takes off at a run with a sack over her head. She can't see so she's running around like a whacko which is what any normal person would do, but it's funny. This is why when the film turns violent it's such a shock. It really is not shocking at all, we just think it is.
To sum it up, Fargo is what intelligent film making is all about. It's a story that is written so perfectly that it appears to be something more than it is. Imagine watching two pit bulls fighting and one kills the other in brutal fashion. Messed up, right? Now replace those pit bulls with chihuahua's and have a similar result. It'd be funny up until one dog is brutally killed. That's Fargo.

The Motorcycle Diaries- Che, eh?

One reason I love watching foreign films is because of the high ratio of quality films to poor films. Simple law of averages: Hollywood produces 99% of all films a domestic fan would see (not the real stat, but it's a healthy estimate), which means the average fan is exposed to more poor films. When a foreign film is good enough to earn an American release, it's generally the best film of that country. Hence, we never get to see the poor films from other countries. That's why I love foreign films, I'm only ever exposed to the good stuff.
The Motorcycle Diaries is the story of a pair of young, educated and ultimately naive students who decided to travel through South America on motorcycle. They have unique personalities but share one common trait: the desire to do good. This trait is tested when they witness the plight of the poor and sick of Latin America. The experience shapes both their lives. The Motorcycle Diaries is a beautiful film. The cinematography hints at a true passion for the subject material. It comes across that those who worked on the film had a great understanding for the places and people of the story. It's a very genuine film in this regard. The acting is superb, featuring what was a breakout performance for Gael Garcia Bernal as a pre-revolutionist Che Gueverra. He plays the role with a natural ease that is in stark contrast to the method style of American cinema. Perhaps that is what I loved most about this film; it's daring, it's true to it's subject material, and is not a Hollywood story of inspiration but one of self-exploration.
Films are powerful in the respect that one rarely comes across one that truly changes a viewer. For those who have experienced this, it is hard to describe to someone who hasn't. Without trying to sound pretentious, the result is like being rewired. One feels different after wards but still the same. The Motorcycle Diaries is less of a must-see as it is a requirement for film lovers.

The Hurt Locker- war is a drug, it never changes

War movies used to be about history. They used to be about the people who were effected. Then along came the 60's. That generation were more in touch with the political effects of war. Vietnam become a symbol for a poor government. Naturally, films followed suit. They became protests of political expression but were still about the people. In the current global state, war movies have become deformed versions of those landmarks. The real heart of what war movies represented was lost.
The Hurt Locker is the story of three IED (Incendiary Explosive Device) experts (Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty, Guy Pearce). Like any team, they are unique individuals trying to find a cohesive way to work together before their tour is up. Naturally, trouble arises with the addition of a new team leader named Will James (Jeremy Renner). Therein already lies an unbelievable amount of dramatic potential. Either they understand each other or they die. Either they learn to work as a team or they die. Either they get over their individual issues or they die. Kathryn Bigelow does an excellent job directing her actors and building the tension. In scenes where they're defusing a bomb, the film makes you less worried about the actual terrorist threat and more about the threat they pose to each other. All the while, Bigelow keeps the film a neutral look on war. Although it never focuses heavily on the civilian or terrorist lives, the film conveys their issues effectively in passing. It makes you angry at the terrorists but not outright hate them. It makes you frustrated with the civilians but sympathize with their situation. It makes you question the troops but feel their individual views on war, duty, and survival.
In a genre that has seemingly lost it's way since the beginning of the war on terror and conflict in the middle east, The Hurt Locker stands as an example of how to interpret the situation logically. This is easily an early leader as one of the best flicks this year. Boom goes the dynamite.

What have I been watching...

I've had a flurry of movie watching lately. A little of this, a little of that. A little good, a little bad. Let's check it out.
Moon- a dazzling and brilliant debut for Duncan Jones. Sam Rockwell, as usual, is a scene-stealer. Luckily, there's two of him. Which means twice as many scenes to steal. It's a a testament to Jones that he keeps the film working and engaging with virtually one actor at work.
Valkyrie- pretty standard action-thriller here. Lots of things were missing, a few things worked. Overall the storyline was actually pretty boring considering the material. Tom Cruise was, as expected, a poor fit. What was really surprising is the poor work on the part of some normally solid actors. Thus I concluded that it was a poor directing job by Bryan Singer. He was unable to properly give his actors things to work with.
Death Race- As you'd expect a Paul W. Anderson film to be. Fast, convoluted, silly. The action is furious. The story is not. It leaves a lot to be desired.
The Straight Story- a rare normal turn for David Lynch. A touching and refreshingly simple story. A man rides a lawn mower to meet his sick, estranged brother. Filmed eloquently. In a manner that reflects its simple pleasure.
The Last Picture Show- A classic coming-of-age story. Makes you pine for younger days, appreciate the time you have, and want to forget the seemingly aimless years in between. Excellent stuff, but too slow for some.

Bruno- thatz zuch a grozz movie

Movies that defy convention or that break trends are often met with mixed reactions. Skeptics question why something has to go out of the conventional mold to do what it has to. Supporters hail it's bold approach to something different. Either way, like any movie it still has to work.
Bruno is a character creation from the mind of Sacha Baron Cohen who brought as such whackos as Borat and Ali G. In his feature film, Bruno is a failed fashion TV star who comes to America to try and find fame. Along the way he attempts different strategies, including: making a sex video with a politician, interviewing celebs, and acting in prime-time TV shows. Naturally, graphic hijinx ensue. Where Bruno shows, as did Borat, is that it isn't the main character that is being lampooned. Your average fan would think Baron Cohen is making fun of Austrians or gay people, but it's quite the opposite. He uses the facade to make lampoon everyone else. It's priceless to watch the reaction of a focus group when Bruno shows them a sample of his TV show he wants greenlit. They react in anger, with humor, and confusion. It's the interactions of the people around Bruno that make this movie, despite it's extreme vulgarity, amusing.
A word for the weak: Bruno is not for the faint of heart. There is nudity, from head to toe. There is discussion of graphic homosexuality. It pretty much goes as far as a conventional movie can go. In that regard, it's brilliant. Just be on your best behaviour.

Snatch- so much fun

A growing genre of film these days is known as 'guy noire'. Essentially, it combines all the things that would appeal to the top demographic of moviegoers: males aged 18-35. These are element such as quick, witty, expletive-filled dialogue. Ridiculously eccentric characters. Fast and stylish editing, music, visuals, etc. Guns, explosions, action, hot women...you get the idea. It's a genre that has been bred from directors such as Quentin Tarintino, Michael Bay, and....
Guy Ritchie has cooled in recent years. Once he was white-hot. When he made Snatch, Ritchie was at his peak and essentially provided a blueprint (which has never been replicated) for an entire new genre. Snatch is one of those movies that is a pure joy to watch. The dialogue is brilliant, made better by the English dialect. The storyline is just crazy enough that it makes you go, "Nooo waaay....well...?" It's got nutty characters, who are either too smart for their own good or dumb or just tricking everyone. The editing works so well it looks easy. Overall, the package is extremely entertaining and, in my opinion, will likely never be done again.
Snatch is fun and furious. It's smart and dumb at the same time. It's the kind of movie that makes you want to keep watching.

Public Enemies- number one

Everyone is afraid of criminals. Yet there are few things as exciting as being in or near the thick of some serious criminal misdoings. That's why audiences love crime flicks. The escape to a world of no laws where anything goes. It's a fantasy that gets the heart racing and blood pumping.
Public Enemies is the semi-fictional tale of the crime wave during the Depression that saw John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, and Pretty Boy Floyd rise to criminal prominence. This also signaled the beginning of the FBI who were tasked with stopping them. Michael Mann is at his best. Think Heat meets the Untouchables. Yea, boom goes the dynamite. The gunfights are loud and tense. Which is a staple for all crime flicks. Mann is on his game, creating aesthetically pleasing shots from scene to scene. He uses close-ups as if they're going out of style but leaves tons of open space conveying oodles of tension by letting the viewer see not only the face but the environment around them. The music was dead on as well. Johnny Depp shines as John Dillinger, a man of charisma and criminal brilliance. Depp plays Dillinger to be an uber-confident but flawed man. While he tricks the feds and seemingly dances under their noses, he lives every moment by the seat of his pants. Dillinger irresponsibly looks no further than he must which makes him appear accepting that his fate is to die young. Depp will say a line with a deadly serious look on his face then momentarily break a witty smile only to let it fade his face as Dillinger returns to the reality that he's not destined to experience joy for long. Excellent. As well Marion Cotillard is excellent as Dillinger's star crossed love.
This is an excellent crime story. It's a longer flick but moves fast. It grips from the opening to the end. If only all films were like this, the world would be a better place.

Taken- to the bike rack

I always like films that break the stereotype. Too often in the film industry today there is a mold and all too often that mold is made out of adamantium, you dig? As a viewer, you get the feeling that nothing is ever new because, well, everything is derivative of something that came before it. That makes original work today more resonant. It's working against nearly a century worth of material.
Taken is the story of a retired CIA 'preventer' (i.e he prevents shizant from happening) who's daughter is kidnapped while on vacation. Naturally he gets pissed and using his old-school skills sets out to lay the smack down (I am using way too much slang in this entry....homes). Liam Neeson is great as Bryan Mills. He pulls off some serious Jason Bourne style ass whuppings as if he was a twenty-something. Which is refreshing to see. This movie takes it's time as well, also refreshing. It takes almost fourty minutes before the first action goes down. This time is used as it should: to introduce us to the characters and build their stories. This way we understand Bryan as he takes morally ambiguous means to find his daughter. We may not agree but we get it. If there is a criticism it is the action sequences are sometimes hard to follow. A poor combination of claustrophobic proximity, dark lighting, and quick editing.
Overall, not bad. I enjoyed it. It's a character story more than an action film. What would a father do for his daughter? If you had the means to an end, no matter the consequences of using these tools, would you use them? Big question.

He's Just Not That Into You- and neither am I....to this movie

Chick flicks are a staple of the film industry. Just as action flicks are made to attract the 18 - 35 male demographic, chick flicks are made to serve a similar purpose. If you're a male you've surely experienced the difficulties of sitting through a horribly cheesy chick flick to appease a woman. That's why, every once and a while, a surprisingly entertaining chick flick is welcome.
He's Just Not That Into You is a story about relationships. Or more like the difficulties of acquiring and/or keeping a significant other. It centers around a group of young, sexified people all in different stages of the love game. Firstly, let me clarify that I in no way found this to be any more than a functional film. It's not great, hardly even good, but it works and doesn't shame itself. The cast is not bad and it's diversity in terms of reputable actors (Jennifer Connelly), little knowns (Bradley Cooper, Ginnifer Goodwin), and bona-fide stars (Jennifer Aniston, Scarlett Johannson{ok, maybe not her so much}) was intriguing to say the least. It's not like that lifts the film in any way, but it's weird to see a cast list that has so many known actors who vary in recognition. The film has it's moments such as periodic When Harry Met Sally style doc interludes in which characters talk about their love stories. Ginnifer Goodwin is very good as a neurotic dateaholic but she becomes incredibly irritating after a while. It was also nice to see Jennifer Connelly again. However, the film gets bogged down in exposition and theme. Too many characters to handle. Not to mention the film would go from light-hearted to intensely sexual in the snap of a finger. Which is odd for a PG flick.
Anyhow, if you're a girl you will like this movie. If you're a guy, you'll hate it. But if you understand what makes a film work or not, this is actually a great example of a movie that does nothing great but nothing poorly. Worth a look....if you're gf is forcing you into it.

Away We Go- and away I went...

A current trend in films these days is the offbeat dramedy. Colorful, but deep, characters interact with other colorful, but deep, characters revolving around a unique set of circumstance. Add a dash of laughs, some alternative music, and a some quirky dialogue and you get an offbeat dramedy. In this regard it's more a style of film making than a genre. Think of films like Juno or Punch Drunk Love. Either way it's a growing trend, and admittedly a welcome one.
Away We Go is the story of a man (John Krasinski) who gets his gf (Maya Rudolph) pregnant. They're in love but both refuse to believe the place they are at in their lives is ideal to raise a child so they take off an a travelling spree to determine where would be the best place to raise a family. This journey takes them to Phoenix, Tucson, Montreal, and Miami. In each place they have friends of family that they interact with and this produces the drama and comedy in the film. Maggie Gylenhaal is very good as an over-bearing hippy mother who believes in new age practices to parenting. The gorgeous Carmen Ejogo is also very good as Rudolph's sister who's unhappy with the man situation in her life. Allison Janney is brilliantly funny as Rudolph's former boss who has become extremely content with the fact she doesn't need to raise her kids well. These characters and their interactions with our main characters is excellent. In addition, both Krasisnski and Rudolph flex their dramatic muscles and the results are surprising. Rudolph in particular is quite good. Sam Mendes directs the story so well we learn worlds about the supporting actors just by a single line of dialogue or decision they make.
While some people might groan at the prospect of another offbeat dramedy, this is one worth seeing. It does all the things an offbeat dramedy is supposed to do. In my opinion, it's superior to the acclaimed Juno which made a run at the Best Picture Oscar in 2008. Either way it's a film worth seeing and seeing again.

Top 10's

I've decided to lay this down on paper. As a film fan, I am used to ranking things. Top 10's are part of my life. Therefore, I shall rank films by genre. Here is my first entry in the Top 10 list: Westerns

1. The Proposition- the most raw Western ever made, true to the form.
2. Unforgiven- like the Proposition, everything about it is what a Western should be
3. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid- the most entertaining Western, an ode to the adventurous spirit of the West
4. Once Upon A Time In The West- an epic only a Western could achieve
5. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly- It was the beginning of the modern Western
6. McCabe and Mrs. Miller- a real thinking man's Western and a tribute to those who dreamt of success in the west
7. Open Range- just a good, old-fashioned Western showdown
8. The Ox-Bow Incident- moral, ethical, and destructive consequences of the lawlessness that existed during the time
9. High Noon- the original showdown Western
10. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford- a brave and new vision of western epics, should be a staple for all Westerns to learn from in the future

And in a close 11 place....The Searchers....just cause you can't have a Western list without John Wayne

I Hate Movies....

You know why I hate movies? I was talking to a friend last night who admitted to seeing Twilight seven times in theaters. Seven times!?!? I mean, did they pay all seven times? I don't think there is a film in existence that is worth seeing in theaters seven times. And of all the movies to watch...Twilight!? I don't get it. I just do not understand the craze over that movie, book, franchise, whatever it's called. All these sad, romance-starved women have to read a book about a vampire to feel giddy about their lives? I mean, in real life vampires are scary, weird, dangerous, revolting. If you met a vampire in an alleyway, you'd scream like a mofo. If it's Eddie Cullen though you pass out. I hate movies.
You know why I hate movies? Because people don't get movies. They don't understand what's so great about movies. There are people who's minds are so linear they couldn't see a box if they are shown a square. They see the world as one thing and not a million things. How can someone see a movie that so blatantly insults their intelligence? How can someone see a movie that offers no moral, ethical, residual value? When I think of your average movie fan I think of how R.P. McMurphy was after his lobotomy. Your average fan doesn't understand what makes a movie a good movie. They don't even understand what makes a bad movie good to them, they just think it's good! I hate movies.

Finding Neverland-...................found it.

I've said for years that film is the ultimate storytelling medium. Unlike photography, painting, writing, or music, film combines other mediums and creates a tapestry of what makes all of those things beautiful. Listening to a song which makes you happy is extenuated when combined with a picture that makes you happy. Lay over a story behind the picture and you get film. When a film does all of these things right, either by a perfect balance of these things or a meaningful detraction of one, film can be an overwhelming experience.
Finding Neverland is the story of James Barrie, the creator of Peter Pan, and how the lives of a family influenced his work and life. Johnny Depp plays the lead and shows off his ability to play a more subtle character than usual. He is one of the dwindling few American actors who can play British (even though the character is Scottish) when usually it's vice-a-versa. Kate Winslet plays the mother of the four boys Barrie comes to adore and she is exceptional as usual. The star of the movie however is Freddie Highmore. Now a teenager, he was barely older than ten when he made this movie. He does a remarkable job as a boy who, so affected by the death of his father, lacks the imagination, joy, and free spiritidness of youth. In addition, Marc Forster does a fantastic job directing. Dabbling in moments of magic into an otherwise real life story creates a more enjoyable film. Oftentimes he dabbles at the perfect moments to offer genuine amusement, much like James Barrie himself.
If you can't hold back tears, grab a box of tissues and get prepped. It truly stimulates an emotional response without overtly manipulating the audience. It simply runs it's course and the characters take the reins. One of the most underrated movies of the last five years, it's one to put high on any list.

The Terminator- way to go a**hole!

The Terminator is one of those rare movies that had a good sequel when the 1984 film spawned a 1991 sequel, T2: Judgment Day that was arguably it's superior. Following a ten-year hiatus, the series returned with a respectable 2003 film, Rise of the Machines. Now in the year 2009 the series is back. Edward Furlong and Nick Stahl have been replaced by Christian Bale. James Cameron and Johnathan Mostow have been replaced by McG. Let's get to it.
In the year 2018, at the height of the war against Skynet and the machines, John Connor has discovered a way to end the war. Meanwhile, an executed convict named Marcus Wright who donated his body to Skynet in 2003 is alive and somehow tied into the whole deal. The action is solid if uninventive and the plot offers some solid emotion and surprises. The acting is good, with Aussie Sam Worthington stealing the show. I do give McG credit for a great vision of a post-apocalyptic future and some great shots. Watch for a great long shot when we first meet Mr. Connor and a compositional excellent shot after a jet fight.
Overall, it was a good flick but not great. The story following Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) is a highlight of the film and really carries the film.

I Hate Movies...

I've decided that my blog was getting a little too I-watch-a-flick-I-review-said-flick. Therefore, this will be the first of a new style of entry! I call it: I Hate Movies. In each post, I will rant (keep that word in mind because each post will be very much a rant) about things in the movie biz that really grind my gears. Ready? No? Ok!
You know why I hate movies? Because of people who like to use the word, 'blockbuster' to describe a summer movie. Blockbuster? What does that even mean? According to Dictionary.com, "... a motion picture, novel, etc., esp. one lavishly produced, that has or is expected to have wide popular appeal or financial success." HUH? That's like making up a word to describe how Starbucks is popular. Let's call it, 'Caffeineation'. A blockbuster is nothing but a cash grab by a bunch of actors who are paid a lot of money, directors who say they like to make, 'fun, popcorn movies' (code for: I have no talent), and greedy studio execs.
You know why I hate movies? People who review a 'blockbuster' by saying that said 'blockbuster' is one of the very best 'blockbusters' that year....FIVE MONTHS INTO THE YEAR! How many blockbusters are we expecting here? Fifty? There really only are three or four a year and half are known to be shite before release and half of the good ones turn out to be shite upon release and the one left remaining is generally a good, but not great, movie. I guess I really should criticize the person reviewing the flick.
You know why I hate movies? People who review a flick and use presumptuous or hasty terms to describe it. I.e. masterpiece, the best of..., classic, etc. It makes no sense. Give it a couple of years, heck, even a couple of months before you start heaping praise on the thing like THAT. The Godfather is a masterpiece, Blade Runner is a classic. Why? THEY'VE BEEN IN CIRCULATION AND STOOD THE TEST OF TIME! The definition of a classic is, '...of literary or historical renown.' and '...of enduring interest, quality, or style." HISTORICAL and ENDURING. You get it?

The Verdict- Hello Newman

Who doesn't like a good, old fashioned courtroom drama? I know I do. Who doesn't like a good, old fashioned Paul Newman flick? I know I do. What is better than combining the two? I know I don't know. The Verdict is a vehicle built solely to show off the skills of one of the finest actors of all time, Paul Newman. Naturally I was intrigued. Let's get on with it.
The Verdict is about a burnt-out, alcoholic lawyer who takes on a case that quickly becomes a nearly no-win situation. The pace is slow and makes it difficult at times to maintain attention. However, the performances are excellent. With every lingering moment Paul Newman stands on screen you feel his character Frankie Galvin deflating physically, emotionally, and spiritually. This is Newman at his peak. Yet the supporting roles are just as good. James Mason plays the brilliant defense attorney who knows the law like he knows himself. He's British, he's calmy aggressive, and he's meticulous. There is one moment where he is blindsided by Galvin's sheer luck of evidence and yet never wavers even as the judge pushes him to question the witness. He simply holds up his hand, reads his notes, and stonewalls Galvin. Beautiful. Roxanna Hart is brilliant as the surprise witness who has lived with the mistakes and pressures of her former bosses for years. Charlotte Rampling and Jack Warden are solid as Galvin's only friends in the case and life.
The Verdict can be a tough watch. You have to really invest yourself in watching it. You will be happy you did though.

Lost- ok, now I'm lost

When ABC's Lost debuted in 2004, it was hailed as richly original. It was a character story first and foremost. What really intrigued most viewers was how and why these characters were connected. What tied them together with their situation. Five season later...we still have no idea. Granted, it still is one of the more compelling shows on television. The problem is that it constantly gives and gives and gives in aching inches and then takes away feet.
Lost is a story about a plane crash that stranded a number of passengers on a mysterious tropical island. These characters are all different and have unique histories. This dynamic alone made the show watchable. Throw in a faceless monster, some terrorizing island natives, supernatural occurrences and baby you got a stew goin'. Like I said before though, we still don't know enough. Now I shall rant.
From season to season the show has changed dramatically in narrative. Seasons one and two were chalk full of intrigue as we were introduced to our characters and their pasts. The island and it's mysteries were like icing on the cake. Gradually this balance has changed. The island is now the character and the people we've come to enjoy have become worn. But the way in which we learn about the island is too close chested compared to the way we learned about the characters. We learn too little in too much time to satisfy the changes in our characters. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYIN'!?!?!?
I am going to watch Lost until the end, no matter how bitter it may be. Producers have promised that season six is going to be one of explanation and not deception. I somewhat fear that. Lost is a magic trick. Like any shows that depend on the tension of what's 'inside the box' and considering how Lost has built a really big mother of a box.....well, it better be a mother of an answer.

Star Trek- beam me up....Oscar?

The title of this post may hit people a little hard. It's not like I'm saying it's the best movie of the year. I doubt it will be come Oscar time next year. However, it offers some of the best used CGI I've seen in a while. Perhaps not the best but the best used. Anyways, let's get right into it.
Star Trek is a prequel to the television show of the same name that has come to rule science-fiction minds worldwide. It describes the origins of the characters such as Captain Kirk, Spock, Bones McCoy, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov, Scotty, and so on and so forth. Firstly, the casting was great. I accepted that this would be an entertainment vehicle and found the actors interpretations of the original characters to be fun if somewhat exaggerated. Chris Pine was funny and remarkably charismatic as Kirk, providing an intriguing and believably portrayal of the young rogue. Everyone did a good job in that respect except perhaps Anton Yelchin as a young Chekov only because his accent was poor (despite the actors Russian influences). The story was cool ***SPOILER*** even though the whole time travel thing has been done in so many ways nowadays and kinda, sorta, negates major components of the entire series storyline.
Now back to my original point, the cinematography in this flick is great. Unlike in the recent Star Wars movies, the CGI is beautiful and artistic even. As a viewer, you actually get a sense of some mise-en-scene. Does an Oscar ring in thine ear? Regardless, this is an excellent flick. As summer blockbusters go, this is right up there.

300- aaaccctiiiiooon in slooooooooowwww mooooooooooo

There are many effects used in film to create emphasis. Lighting effects, special effects, camera effects, etc. One effect that when overused is as painful as pins under your eyelids (no experience in that) is film speed. You know, speeding things up and slowing things down. While speeding scenes up is rare because of it's disorienting, slowing scenes down is a time-tested effect.
300 is a film adaptation of the graphic novel of the same name. It's a retelling of the historical battle of Thermopylae where 300 Spartans staved off a massive Persian army to protect their country. Now first and foremost I'm aware this is a stylized film. I'm not dumb enough to judge it like a Shakespearean play. One can still expect some drama, some meaning, something! Alas, there is none. No, this is a film about violence in slow mo. This is a movie made to look cool. It lacks so many narrative elements it looks like a sheet of cellophane held in front of a sunrise. You can see right through it at the 'beauty' that's there. That impresses only the near-sighted.
Now let me say this as well: the perception of originality and vision about this film is shockingly bad. No offense. People actually think the look is something different. This is a literal panel-for-panel carbon copy. No offense. If any credit is due, it's too the computer programmers. Not the director. A monkey could have filmed this. No offense. Screw it. All offense meant.

Fast and Furious- like a car crashed into your brain

I'm still reeling from the barrage my brain took for watching the fourth installment of the Fast and Furious series. It doesn't get any more dumbed-down than this. This may be a long entry, so please bear with me.
Fast and Furious takes place five years after the events of the first film and Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) returns to his old stomping grounds to find the murderer of his girlfriend Letty. Meanwhile, Brian O'Conner has moved up in the FBI and is investigating a major drug cartel who are using street racers to transport their drugs. Anyways, after some silly plot developments the two cross paths once again.
Dumb development one: Dominic goes to the crash site where Letty was killed and is able to determine that the burn marks on the street are from a certain car nitrate that only one guy in LA sells. Coincidentally, this guy is still in the only one in LA who sells it and Dominic knows where this guy works. You'd think in five years something would have changed but no. Even more lame-brained is that the FBI couldn't figure this out themselves.
You know what? I can't even continue writing about how many silly things went down in this movie. I mean, it's a given that it would have a bad plot so I'll leave it there. Let me break down the other elements of the movie. There was no mise-en-scene worth talking about. The camera work was ok, but the editing was choppy and poor. The car races were hard to follow because like a lot of action movies these days constant cutting is used to create tension rather than good old fashioned filming techniques. The acting was funny, but I don't know if I should blame the director or actors. When Jordana Brewster, who plays Dominic's sister Mia, says, 'I love you.' it was like an, 'I'm in love with you.' Which is kinda....weird. Nitpicky, I know, but nonetheless bad. The dialogue was hilarious. How many movies has someone replied, 'Every day.' when being asked how often they think about a bad decision they made? Like, come on! We get that you're 'tortured'. Maybe something like, 'Too often.' would have been better. That's different at least! What else can I complain about? Oh yea, is it just me, or is it not hilarious when every character looks like the clothes they were came fresh out of the box? Hahaha, like, what? Just hilarious.
I'd like to say I'm done, and I will stop typing, but there is just too much that was bad about this movie not to keep going. I'm going to watch a really good movie soon so that it will be amazing in perspective and save some of my sanity.

Keanu Reeves- total, like, idiot

There are some bad actors out there. We all know it. Then there are those who are bad actors and keep...getting...work....it's an odd thing. I mean, no matter how poor they are from film to film, there are always people lining up to put them in that next flick. My favorite: Keanu Reeves.
Now I have a theory on Keanu. Perhaps this is why I like him more than the other talentless hacks. I have him figured out. The theory goes like this: when he plays a character who doesn't know what is going on, he's awesome. When he plays a character that has a clue, he's terrible. Think about it. Speed, The Matrix, Bill and Ted's; he's awesome. No freakin' clue. The Matrix sequels, The Watcher, The Replacements, he smells.
No matter if you like or dislike Keanu, you have to admit the theory holds for the most part. Some exceptions to the rule have to do with when he's clueless. This include Dracula, in which he is terrible and has the less of a clue than a knat and the Devil's Advocate, among others. However, there are no exceptions for a smart Keanu. Whenever he's in on it, he's bad.
To finish off, it's a requirement that film makers need to be given their due despite their faults. Tom Cruise may suck, but few people can pick a role that matches them like he can. So open your minds and be cool.

Point Break- it's about the rush, bro

Who doesn't like a good bank robbery? Every once and a while, a good bank robbery is just what a moviegoer needs. What better bank robbery story than a good old existential trip with the man they call Bohdi.
Point Break is the story of Johnny Utah played by Keanu Reeves, a hotshot FBI agent who takes the case of finding a notorious heist group known as the Dead Presidents, who may or may not be surfers. Utah finagles his way into the local surf crowd and begins investigating the leads. He quickly befriends surf philosopher Bodhi played by Patrick Swayze, who drags him into his world of adrenaline fueled exploits. Turns out, Bodhi is bad. Keanu Reeves fits well because for the most part he has no clue what is going down, his speciality (see. Keanu Reeves- total, like, idiot). Swayze is at his best, a chillaxed surfer who sees more to life than the system. He is, in a word, radical.
Point Break is a classic thrill ride. The acting is more or less crap, the writing is more or less silly, and the mindless coolness never stops. It fits the very definition of a guilty pleasure. Check it out. It'll blow your mind. Seriously.

What have I watched lately?

I went through a binge. A major movie binge. If it was a movie and it was on tv, I watched it. If it was a movie and it was on tv and I owned it, I popped it in the DVD player and watched it without commercials. Cause commercials suck.
Let me recap what I watched: Philadelphia, Misery, and Die Hard. Quick few sentence opinion of each. Philadelphia is a drama of great magnitude. Johnathan Demme manages to make it very a revealing look at discrimination, through his combination of uncomfortable close-ups and subject matter. Very good acting, too. Misery is a classic look at obsession. It's a little campy but the overall package, especially the famous 'hobbling' scene, is terrifying. Kathy Bates makes you cringe thinking about being in her care. Die Hard is the bomb. Enough said.

Trailers- love 'em, hate 'em

I just watched a trailer for X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Let me be one of the few to say, hooooly wow that is gonna be bad. I mean, bad bad. Not kind of bad. Poo bad. Which brings me to the topic at hand: trailers.
Whether you like watching trailers or not, they have become a vital piece of the movie industry. They excite crowds about the possibilities. They give the audience a preview of what is to come. Therein lies the double-edged sword. A good trailer can do wonders for a films opening weekend gross. A bad trailer can kill a movie.
Think about the last time you saw a really good trailer. At that time, you probably were 99% sure you would see the movie. Sometimes that fades, for instance when I watched the Watchmen teaser. Or it stays with you, like when I saw the trailer for Kingdom of Heaven. The effect is undeniable though. It influences your decision before the movie has even hit screens.
I just watched the trailer for Where the Wild Things are. I can easily say that even if it got one star I would see it. It's just a beautiful trailer. It helps that it's made by Spike Jonze and is based on one of the greatest children's books ever. The effect, once again, is undeniable, The trailer convinced me there was no need to listen to reviews or critics or people who see it first. A bad trailer only manages to open a persons ears....and shut their eyes.

The Road Warrior- heeeey what a rush!

Sometimes low budget films can be gems. It's tough because with the low budget comes hokey acting, costumes, sets, camera techniques, etc. But in the case of this small-time Australian flick, it makes the movie.
The Road Warrior is set in post-apocalyptic Australia in which gasoline is worth more than a human life. A loner by the name of Max comes across a refinery in the middle of the wasteland under siege by a vicious gang. It's a tremendous tale of morality. Max is a loner who is thinking from one day to the next. Survival is primary on his mind. The question is: will he or won't he help these people for a benefit other than his own?
Out of necessity, this film is very grungy and dusty. Obviously a low budget picture, all the aforementioned elements shine because they fit in the context. Our bad guys drive busted up cars that were probably hauled in from a junkyard, the costumes looked like they were the only thing available to wear, and it all works. It perfectly suits this movie and it's simple concepts.
Watch this flick. Just do it.

Adventureland- adventure man

A hot trend in the biz these days is the off-beat comedy. Characters who aren't the prettiest, they're eccentric, and they have goofy interests. The current blueprint for this is Juno. Jason Reitman's pleasant flick about a pregnant teen has set the bar high for films like it.
Adventureland is about a young man who is forced to work at a rinky dink theme park in the summer of 1987 to make money for school. He gets the job expecting a terrible summer of toiling away but ends up having the time of his life. The dialogue is fun and generally unique. The acting is solid, even Ryan Reynolds manages to not overdo it for once. Jesse Eisenberg, from such fantastic films as The Squid and the Whale and Roger Dogder, is very solid in the lead role. Kristen Stewart, of Twilight (I'm sorry, I just puked in my mouth) fame, is good but she plays with her hair one too many times that it becomes aggravating. The flaws lie in the story. It comes across as a studio picture that has been made to look like an offbeat, indie comedy.
It's not that I didn't like it. I did. It's quite funny and is one of those movies where the character relationships work when the comedy is not as heavily involved. If someone were to say, "Hey man, wanna watch Adventureland?" I would say of course. I just wouldn't pay.

You are a movie connoisseur if...

I hate movie fans. I ain't gonna lie. Your average 'fan' is really just a person who watches movies frequently. I consider myself not a fan, but a connoisseur. Believe me, I know how arrogant and self-absorbed that sounds. I just don't care because quite honestly, it's true. I decided to compile a list of requirements (no, certain characteristics aren't debatable, come on) that deem one a connioseuer:
1. You can sit through a movie that exceeds 3 hours regardless of the subject matter and, unless truly horrible, not turn it off because of the length. The ultimate test being Inland Empire on five hours rest at 10 pm when having to wake up at 5 am.
2. You cannot argue with someone who believes the Godfather I and II are not one of the best movies ever made. In my opinion, there are a handful of movies that if anybody said they were the best I would not argue. The Godfathers are a barometer that is set to weed out the weak.
3. You can watch a movie made before 1970.
4. You can watch a silent film.
5. You can name at least one actor who is in everything but is not a lead actor. Added props if you can recognize extras.
6. You can not only quote a movie, you could quote the conversation that the quote you used took place.
7. You understand why Plan 9 From Outer Space is so terrible. And I don't mean, "Cause it was so bad!" I mean why it was so bad.
8. You have a favorite director/writer/actor who 90% of people have no idea who they are.
9. You don't cringe at the thought of watching a foreign film.
10. When Tom Cruise is on screen, you generally become nauseous.
11. When Marlon Brando screams, "I coulda been a contender!" you get a boner (ok, not really...but really...)
12. You often need a minute to compose yourself as the credits roll because you literally.........cannot.....speak......
If you meet these requirements, you are a friend of mine. If not, I offer you no points and may God have mercy on your soul (it'd be nice if you could name the movie that was from, too).

Best Biopic Performances

You know I don't love people playing real roles. Like my good friend Ricky says, "You can't sum up a persons life in two hours." But they can be great. Let's list off some of the best, in no particular order (although if it's listed high chances are I thought of it quickest).
1. George C. Scott as Gen. George S. Patton in "Patton"...quite simply one of the most quotable, memorable biopic performances, heck, performances period. He's so badass it's ridiculous.
2. Christopher Plummer as Mike Wallace in "The Insider"...He's in it for like, 20 minutes, and he's amazing. You get the impression Mike Wallace was exactly like that. Try to convince me his blowup at Gina Gershon is not one of the most intense things you've ever seen.
3. Bruno Ganz as Adolph Hitler in "Downfall"...we all have an impression of how crazy Hitler was. Nobody likes him. Yet Ganz does an amazing portrayal of a man at his end, cornered and losing his grip. Like Christopher Plummer, try to convince me his blowup is not one of the most intense things you've ever seen.
4. F. Murray Abraham as Atonio Sallieri in "Amadeus"...Amadeus rules. And Abraham does such a great job, granted it's not necessarily accurate. He plays Sallieri as a forgotten man. You really the idea, too.
5. Paul Newman and Robert Redford as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid in "Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid"...just plain, straight up entertainment. Is there a better outlaw duo ever? Heck, Newman and Redford should have been credited as one entity: Newford or or or Redman....yeaaaa.....
6. Eric Bana as Mark 'Chopper' Reed in "Chopper"...just watch it and you'll understand why it's on this list.
7. Denzel Washington as Ruben 'Hurricane' Carter in "The Hurricane"...arguably his best performance. Like many on this list, there are a few scenes which just make your skin tingle. Carter in solitary confinement battling his demons. As if the Hurricane and Ruben Carter are two different people fighting for control of the same body. Awesome stuff.
8. Daniel Day-Lewis as Christy Brown in "My Left Foot"...never even seen it. All I know is he uses his left foot for everything. I mean, shoot man, who the hell can keep their concentration that long? He's method, too. Did he do it the whole filming process?
6. Muhammad Ali as Muhammad Ali in "When We Were Kings"- How amazing is it that an actor with the exact same name as Muhammad Ali ends up playing him in one of the best sports flicks ever? HAHAHA, good stuff eh?..........what? That was the real Muhammad Ali? Oh....BOOYA!

The D'pahdid- *translation* The Departed

Funny, I started writing this on St.Pats and then COMPLETELY forgot about it....I wonder why? So I'll just start like I never missed it.
It is St. Patrick's day! This glorious holiday unfortunately comes only once a year, giving us movie fans only one day a year to celebrate the gluttony of Irish films. Ok, by gluttony I mean...the, uh, litany? Sadly, the number of films that honor Ireland are few and far between. For every Once you have a Far and Away. Therefore, I took this day to dishonor a movie that takes place in the Irish epicenter of America: Boston.
The Departed is a film by Martin Scorsese, he made famous by the mafia crime genre. It tells the story of two moles; one working for the police, the other for the mob. They have both infiltrated the others' side and are in the works of uncovering one another. Little known fact is that the Departed is a remake of a Chinese flick known as Infernal Affairs. If one were to watch both of these movies they'd realize the story is virtually the same; down to the smashing of the cast on our heroes arm. This is pet-peeve number one. No offence to Scorsese, he's great and I love the guy, but he made an American carbon-copy of a Chinese movie. Doesn't that scream cheap?
The Departed won Best Picture in 2007, not a complete disgrace of a win, but in comparison to Scorsese's other great works it doesn't fit. I mean, people praise the acting of this flick but I just don't get it. To start: Leonardo DiCaprio is fairly unbelievable in this role. He's never been a 'tough' guy. He grows a beard and people think he can kick ass? Right. Matt Damon, while very charming, is so over-the-top it's actually more funny than anything. I mean, he enunciates everything like his life is going to end. Nicholson is cool, but he's not nearly on his form. Mark Wahlberg suffers from the Matt Damon syndrome. Probably the worst of the bunch.
That said, the movie has it's moments. A great soundtrack is utilized beautifully. Some very memorable scenes. And, despite the fact it's a copy, a great story. It's just not the movie people say it is. Did I mention the entire film is copied?

Jaws- we're gonna need a bigger boat

There are some movies that no matter much time goes by they are never dated. They stay strong as an immovable boulder in a river of garbage (whoa, simile overload). These movies tend to be groundbreaking landmarks of cinema. They change their genre or the industry in general.
Jaws tells the story of a shark terrorizing a summer town and the three men who set out to stop it.
Like many great films, the premise is simple. The story arc is simple. Unlike some movies that are determined to start with as loud a bang as possible, Jaws begins subtly and thus is all the more terrifying. A girl goes night swimming. All of a sudden something grabs her from beneath and thrashes her through the water. She screams in agony, disturbing the peaceful night, until she is suddenly pulled under and it is silent once again. As if she was never there. It's this subtlety that makes Jaws so powerful.
It's a movie that simply suggests the horrifying potential of what we do not know or understand. What is scarier than what we don't know? Water is a horrifying thing. There are many scary things in water, and the biggest and scariest of them all is the shark. Everything about a shark is scary. Steve Spielberg takes advantage of this.
Jaws still stands amongst very few when it comes to the monster genre. Not many movies in any genre have stood the test of time like Jaws, and for that it deserves heaps of credit.

What I can't wait to see...

The Road- Cormac McCarthy, only the guy who wrote No Country For Old Men, has his post-apocalyptic odyssey adapted to screen. I loved this book. It's going to be a great flick. One reason? Your average fan will hate it. Oh yea. Can't wait.
Blood Meridian- Another McCarthy adaptation. I'm currently about 150 pages in. It's supposed to be one of the bloodier books in print. Anyways, it's awesome. Ridley Scott is slated to direct. The cherry on top. I can't wait for this one, it hasn't even begun filing yet either.
Star Trek- I know, I know. This has potential to blow like Moby Dick (multiple puns intended). It intrigues me though. I can't say why, as I'm really not sure. Something about it's look has me excited. And hey, if it sucks, that'll be just entertaining.
Public Enemies- think The Untouchables except you know, without Kevin Costner. This one has crime genre fans abuzz and for good reason: Michael Mann, one of the best crime guys around, directs Christian Bale and Johnny Depp in the leads. Can anyone say, 'awesome'?
Dragonball Evolution- ok, not really. HA!

The Shawshank Redemption- Upon further review....

Watched it. Still overrated. Sorry.

Acting- what makes a good role?

Acting is one of the integral parts of movie-making. Bad acting can sink a movie faster than a leaky lifeboat (Leaky lifeboats!?). Good acting can sustain a film, even define it. What makes good acting though? It's really a matter of opinion. Of course, some people have a better opinion than others.
To me, acting is in in the nuances. The way an actor delivers a line for emphasis, their voice fluctuating where it regularly should not. The way they walk or move. The more subtle the detail, the better. Because in all honesty, who really twitches or mutters in an over-obvious way? If an actor has to do too much it is too much. Then again, some actors thrive on overacting. Mostly comedians. Or Jimmy Stewart.
What kind of roles are the best kind then? Well, if you ask the Academy it's the kind your average joe would say is good acting. This means playing the mentally or physically handicapped, someone gay, or a famous figure. Don't get me wrong, these roles are challenging. Their just too obvious. I say the best kind are the ones where an actor can build on a fictional character who has the kind of issues you may not know but notice if you look well enough. A drug addict. A person who's spouse is cheating on them. A person with social anxiety disorder. Think of how hard it is to convey the emotions requisite of a person who's problems are under the surface. Do you wear your problems on your sleeve?
When I watch Sean Penn act, I find it very smug. Almost like he knows he's got some meaty, meaningful role. When I watch Tom Wilkinson, I see an actor with versatility. It's personal opinion. I will argue my opinion is superior to yours, but I will respect that you have an opinion.

Sequels- bigger, louder, badder

I hate sequels. There is nothing more annoying than a sequel. Hell, then people started getting into prequels and I say to myself, "When will the madness end?" and the reality is that only when the buck stops, sequels will stop.
The problem with sequels is inherent. It's a simple formula really: Sequel = Original Movie + Bigger Budget (Opening Weekend Profit/Original Budget) - Brains. What happens when someone gets money they don't need? They spend it, right? How do they spend it? Carelessly, right? They spend it in a way that does not match the way they had before, that had ultimately led to their previous success, and hence the bigger budget. It makes everyone involved lazy. It doesn't help that the original minds behind the project get out (for good reason) to do more original, rewarding work. The studio then hires some music video rookie, give them a major budget and say, "Make it good!" (which is movie-speak for, "Make more money!")
Let us look at some sequels from the years. The Matrix sequels. Garbage, right? Why? Because the budget was huge (they built a freeway for it for goodness sakes) and the story was so complicated it was almost funny. Everyone decided it needed to be bigger and better. Pirates of the Caribbean. The first was charming and fun. The second one was nauseating anytime Johnny Depp wasn't on screen. The third one was bad in general. Every Rocky sequel minus Rocky II was garbage.
This is not to say that all sequels stink. The Dark Knight is better than the original. The Godfather Part II, awesome. The Empire Strikes Back, awesome. Terminator 2: Judgment Day, awesome. The Bourne sequels. They exist.
The problem, and this is especially prevalent today, is that studios feel the need to add with sequels rather than expand sequels. Bigger vehicles rather than better stunt driving or CGI rather than inventive choreography. Films are dumbed down for he masses so they'll go see it rather than care about it.

Comic book films

If there is one current trend that is as polarizing as comic book adaptations, I'd like to see it. You've got films like The Dark Knight and Road To Perdition inspired by graphic novels, that are sensational. Then you've got literal page-to-screen versions of graphic novels like 300, done poorly (made by the 'visionary' Zack Snyder). Then you've got films inspired by comic book characters like the X-Men and Spiderman. Some are good, some stink.
Comic books and graphic novels provide great sources for film. However. I still contend novels are better. Why? Novels provide the vision that can be adapted to the screen. Which means that the films adaptation of the novel will be judged for the content more than the visuals. Whereas a comic book/graphic novel film will be judged on the story and the visuals. Not to mention, the visuals of a graphic novel eliminate nearly all flexibility for the director to create their own interpretation on screen. Just look at 300. It's a panel for panel remake. Look at what they're trying to do with Watchmen. I get that it's gorgeous visual art, but it's still lifting the panel and putting it on screen.
Watch a film like Road To Perdition. That is the epitome of a graphic novel that is made unique and visualized nearly separate from the on paper content. In the end, it's a double edged sword no matter what. However, a good director turns his back to the crowd and applies their own vision to the content, makes it their own. That is what a good director does.

Twilight- the phenomenot

Your movie fan is broken down into three groups: the knowers, the know nots, and know not muches. The knowers are people who can recognize a good movie when they see it and a bad movie when they see it (which is oftentimes likened to watching a comedy to your average person). The know nots can recognize what makes a good movie but not what makes a bad one, hence they tend to like a lot of stuff. The know not muches couldn't discern a good movie from a bad movie even if they wanted to so they end up liking mostly garbage.
Twilight is the current mega hit in the movie biz. The kind of movie that makes ridiculous amount of money, so much so that the sequel is greenlit within the first week of the release. It's the story of a young girl who falls in love with a mysterious new boy who happens to be a vampire. She falls for him, he falls for her, they stare longingly into each others eyes and then they kiss so achingly slow it's almost painful to watch.
There are some movies that do not need to be viewed to be judged and criticized. Freddy Got Fingered, Postal, etc. Twilight is one of them. For one, it's routinely panned by critics. And as much as people like to say, "I don't listen to critics." let's be honest. It's their job and they tend to know what they're doing. Therefore, if a movie is panned by nearly all who watch it, that's hundreds of educated minds coming to the same conclusion. You know, kind of like when every doctor alive says drinking acid is bad. Another reason is that it's a teen love story. Name me one teen love story that had any substance. Crickets. Ok, next topic. It's aimed a very specific demographic; women aged 13 - 45 also known as women who are looking for romance at every turn. So when you watch the trailer and see the dashing lead say, "You're eyes make me....want to stare forever." they get lightheaded and giddy. The final reason why I can say without a doubt Twilight is not a good movie without having ever seen it; unquestionable campiness in nearly every facet. Just watch the position of the camera, the way shots are set-up, the lighting, the sets, the acting, the dialogue, go on and on and it's all campy, campy, campy.
Next time you see a trailer and think to yourself, "Man, that looks great!" Please, stop for a moment and think about what you just saw. More than likely it was an orgy of the best parts of the flick, and you've been duped.