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.