Kill Bill Vol. 1 (2003)

Quentin Tarantino is a film geek (not unlike yours truly) who is massively influenced by the films he has seen and is a master at mixing those influences coherently. Kill Bill Vol. 1 is a perfect example of this. Additionally Tarantino is a master at non-linear storytelling. In this case we start at the beginning and move into the end of the story and Tarantino, as he did with Pulp Fiction, manages to tie everything together by the end through his near-perfect writing. He frequently places "Macguffins" (something that the audience finds inconsequential until much later on) that help to reinforce the need to pay attention.

The film centers around a woman known only as The Bride (Uma Thurman) who, four years after being shot in the head at her wedding, awakens from a coma and decides it's time for a little, or a lot, of payback. Having been gunned down by her former boss (David Carradine) and his squad of deadly international assassins (Daryl Hannah, Vivica A. Fox, Michael Madsen, Lucy Liu) she goes on a quest to exact her revenge and much like any movie about that subject the quest is messy. Lots of "innocent" people die along the way because unfortunately that's the story of revenge. It never works out quite the way the avenger wants it to.

The violence in the film is extensive. A lot of it is so immensely over the top that it borders on camp. I am reminded of Peter Jackson's Dead Alive simply because of the massive amount of blood. A lot of people ask how I can give this film a pass and hate the violence in a film like Kick-Ass. The answer is simple. The violence in this film is not gruesome or unpleasant. The fight scenes in this film are highly choreographed and interesting to view just from a stylistic standpoint.

The film is well-written and carries with a sense of style that was evidently influenced by the Martial Arts films of the seventies and eighties.

It's refreshing to see a woman in a role that is so often reserved for men and Uma Thurman is immensely perfect in the film. I'm not sure if women will be empowered by a character that is a female warrior and not simply just the girl walking around tee-heeing about stupid things but who knows?

★★★★

Our Idiot Brother (2011) Review

The title of this movie is misleading. One would expect a raunchy film about an infantile slob who goes to live with his family and wreaks havoc on them with his stupidity. In reality it is a rather bittersweet film about a laid back kind-hearted man named Ned (Paul Rudd) who, after selling marijuana to a uniformed police officer, lands in jail. He is released early eight months later (named model prisoner four months in a row) and due to his pacifist girlfriend kicking him out has to go live with his sisters. Each of the sisters has a problem that they tell Ned about expecting him to keep it a secret. Liz (Emily Mortimer) is a highly conservative mom married to a weasel of a filmmaker (Steve Coogan); Miranda (Elizabeth Banks) is an ambitious writer who hopes to work for Vanity Fair magazine, and Natalie (Zooey Deschanel) may be a lesbian but isn't sure if she wants to move in with another woman. I won't go into what each of the sisters respective problems are suffice it to say that the majority of them are their own doing. Ned tells all the wrong people but that's not for malicious reasons. It's because he simply assumed that everyone knew what was going on. One by one the sisters start to hate Ned because he is "ruining their lives".

One of the things that I liked most about the film was how nice it was to watch. Ned is almost a saint and is so friendly to everyone he meets. He has an almost constant smile and nearly never loses his temper. There is only one scene where he does and it is quite a well-done scene and completely justified. It was refreshing to see a character that isn't cynical or paranoid that people will betray him. He is an idiot in the sense that he is wholly honest and trusting. Why did he sell that officer the weed? Because the cop told him he had a bad week. Ned didn't even want to accept money for it.

Due to his roles in other films like Knocked Up and The 40 Year Old Virgin I expected to be annoyed with Paul Rudd's performance and instead was pleasantly surprised at the great range he exudes in the film. He truly did a good job here and I wish that I could be like Ned.

Perhaps the film is not worth the rating I'm giving it but since it is a nugget of nimble wit and intelligent humor in an era of unfunny gag comedies I am regarding it rather highly.

★★★★

Straw Dogs (2011) Review

In the wake of her father's death, Amy (Kate Bosworth) returns to her rural Southern hometown with her screenwriter husband, David (James Marsden). Her goal is to put her childhood home on the market while David works on his latest screenplay. Meanwhile, David hires Amy's high school boyfriend Charlie (Alexander Skarsgård) and his crew to rebuild the roof on the secluded country home. But the more time Charlie's work crew spends working on the roof, the greater tensions begin to grow between Amy and David. Every time Amy walks outside, the work stops and the ogling begins. When David attempts to avert confrontation by firing the crew before the job is finished, former high school football star Charlie snaps, deciding that if he can't have Amy on his own terms, he'll take her by force. Later, when a mentally disabled presumed rapist or child murderer kills a high school student her father, only called Coach (James Woods) swears revenge and Charlie and his crew decide to help. Amy and David take in the murderer to protect his life from the angry mob and all hell breaks loose as Charlie and company break into their house.

One of the many things I could say about this film is that it is a tense, well-structured thriller that doesn't need to rely on exorbitant amounts of constant violence to be effective. Don't get me wrong. The film is very violent but much of that is in the last fifteen minutes and if you look closely a large portion happens off-screen and in shadow rather than harsh fluorescent light. What you do see is so quick that, if you blink you might miss it. One of the more disturbing scenes is a scene in which Amy is raped by Charlie and his "second-in-command" Norm. It is disturbing in the sense that it is rape but there are the same types of scenes in other films I could name that are more uncomfortable to watch. I was more moved by the intimidating performance by Skarsgård and the frightening work done by Woods than any other roles in the film. When Charlie chastises David for leaving a church sermon early I nearly said, "Yes sir". Woods has portrayed some fairly evil characters in the past but this is by far the scariest one.

On a completely separate note when I saw the film the reels were mixed up which led to me being removed from the feelings I was having during the intense moments in the house and put into events several hours earlier. If they had been in the proper order I would have enjoyed the film more. Sure it's not as good as the 1971 original but I prefer to look at this as its own film unlike some critics.

★★★

American History X (1998) Review

Derek Vinyard (Edward Norton), the charismatic leader of a group of young neo-Nazi white supremacists, lands in prison for a brutal hate-driven murder. Upon his release he is ashamed of his past and pledges to reform himself. Derek realizes that his younger brother Danny (Edward Furlong) is headed for a similar fate and so Derek attempts to save his brother from the teachings of a manipulative white supremacist (Stacey Keach) who also was the one who convinced Derek of his pre-prison beliefs after his father was murdered by a black man. I refuse to give away what happens to Derek in prison that makes him change because it is such a powerfully disturbing moment but not excessive.

Derek is a character of many multiple dimensions. During the black and white flashbacks we see a man consumed by rage and hate and when the film transitions to color for the present day events we see a more reserved although by no means timid version of Derek. Edward Norton plays both these with a scorching intensity that is perfection in its complexities. We believe that the character would transition the way he does. There is no moment of insincerity in Derek's attempts to change.

There is quite a bit of racist language in the film. It pulls no punches with showing the film through white supremacist's eyes. One scene in particular drives this home. There is a basketball game between Derek, his fellow neo-Nazis and a group of black teenagers. Derek manages to make the game winning shot and we get the general "hero" theme as the white characters celebrate their victory. We don't know anything about the black characters they played against, who they are as people, because neither does Derek. He has no desire to. With all these trappings (the music, the "hero" shots, a strong charismatic character) it can be hard not to root for him on a visceral level. There is, at the same time, a lot of irony in this scene. The successes are not borne out of joy but out of hate. The film is extensively subtle in the way it teaches the lessons it does and is, without giving spoilers, a heartbreaking picture.

★★★★

Conan the Barbarian (2011) Review

Conan the Barbarian is a movie of contrivance and convenience. I went into the film with low expectations and lower hopes and somehow still managed to be dissatisfied.

Conan (Jason Mamoa) is basically your average slaughtering hero. He's tall, muscular and sports a rather camera-friendly scars. He is a "battle-born" (meaning his father performed an emergency Caesarean section on the battlefield) Cimmerian whose entire village was slaughtered, including his father (Ron Perlman), by a power-hungry warlord named Khaler Zym (Stephen Lang) and his daughter (Rose McGowan). Conan grows up and becomes a pirate that hunts the earth for Zym. Basically you don't really need to know anything else. Conan goes somewhere, kills a bunch of people, puts his sword in the ground and does it all over again.

The majority of the film is horribly incoherent. Characters are in one place and then suddenly they appear in another with no explanation of how they got there or managed to escape their earlier predicament. All the moments between the action scenes seem to be nothing more than filler before the next battle. While I'm at it, the battles are boring and ridiculous. When a character cuts through that thick leather armor a hundred and twenty eight ounces of blood plop out all at once no matter where the victims are cut. Well, every victim except Conan. . Oh and before I forget, I really want to be a warlord. They apparently get a really good dental plan.

One of the more out-of-place roles is Morgan Freeman as the narrator. His voice, while pleasant, just doesn't fit. It's the first thing you hear in the film and immediately takes you out of the film thereby forcing you to be uninvolved by everything that follows. The only saving grace for the movie is Ron Perlman but he's always interesting to watch.

Broadswords go a long way with me. Just not far enough.

★

The Reef (2010) Review

People tend to have a great apprehension of the ocean. The fear of the unknown or of what we can't see is far more substantial then what's right in front of us. The Reef is a film that exploits that fear in ways that are at times thrilling and tense and at other times stupid and boring.

Supposedly based on actual events (the only similar events I could find were from a man named Ray Boundy who was the sole survivor of an incident in 1983) The Reef is about a group of five friends who go sailing/snorkeling/fishing along the Great Barrier Reef. From one dull moment to another we follow them on a standard beautiful-people-in-beautiful-locations adventure. The group's small sailboat capsizes after colliding with the reef and four of them decide to take their chances and swim for a (hopefully) nearby island. Along their way there they begin to be stalked by a Great White Shark.

The film is written and directed by Andrew Traucki. It basically follows the same plot as his previous survival film, Black Water, but substitutes a shark in the place of a crocodile and a boat in the place of a tree. Sometimes in the film he does a good job of creating tension by extending the time before the characters either see the shark they know is there or before the shark attacks but once the shark does attack it turns into a jump-scare fest. He'd been better off focusing on the pressure that the characters have from being tired, dehydrated and traumatized by the death of their friends one by one.

The film ends right where it should have begun. The sole survivor makes it to a rock and we get the usual "So-and-so was found three days later. The other guy who stayed behind wasn't found". Something that would have been far more original and interesting is after she is found she recounts her ordeal in flashbacks. Then we could have seen how it might have affected her but instead we are simply left with a moment we've seen five hundred billion times before.
★1/2

Jurassic Park (1993) Review

Nearly twenty years before Jurassic Park was first released Steven Spielberg made Jaws. That film was a masterpiece. A stunning success measured by the overall failure of shark attack films since. The same is true of this film. In the hands of another filmmaker this could turn into your standard Saturday monster matinee but Spielberg's mastery of science-fiction and indeed film itself keeps that from happening.

Based upon the novel by Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park imagines a world where Dinosaurs are no longer extinct. On a remote island, a wealthy entrepreneur (Richard Attenborough) secretly creates a theme park featuring living Dinosaurs drawn from prehistoric DNA. Before opening the attraction to the public, he invites a top paleontologist (Sam Neill), a paleobotanist (Laura Dern), a mathematician/theorist (Jeff Goldblum), and his two eager grandchildren (Joseph Mazzello, Arianna Richards) to experience the park -- and help calm anxious investors. A money-hungry computer technician (Wayne Knight) tries to steal the Dinosaur embryos and forces systems all over the park to shut down causing the prehistoric creatures to break out who then wreak havoc.

Not only is it a visually brilliant film but it also is incredibly nice to listen to. I know what you're thinking. The screeching Dilophosaurus is nice to listen to? Trust me. If you were only listening to the film as it plays in your living room while you are in the kitchen it would still be exquisite. There is a nice blending to all the sounds in the film. The real stars of the film are the Dinosaurs. This is due to the work of Phil Tippett, Dennis Muren, Stan Winston and Michael Lantieri. Each of these men are vital to the effects being able to succeed. I still watch the film and have to wonder who was responsible for what shots of the Dinosaurs in the film.

The film is still the standard for any live-action film with dinosaurs running around. The phenomenal effects have not aged in the least. Maybe because people aren't used to seeing Dinosaurs so we aren't as quick to criticize but there is no point in denying that when people of think of Dinosaur films they think of Jurassic Park first and foremost. Indeed when someone tries to change the way Dinosaurs move or sound in a film we often reject it.

★★★1/2

Waking Sleeping Beauty (2009) Review

So many documentaries fail to actually do what the genre's name implies. Documentation. The filmmakers bring in their own preconceived notions and political beliefs and disguise them as facts. Waking Sleeping Beauty manages to document the truth in an enormously bittersweet style. A truth that can only be told by the people who were there. The truth was that, although it seemed like a paradise, from 1984-1994 the Disney Animation Studios was a difficult time. Management changes and egos nearly spelled the end of the studio but strangely enough it was also the most successful point in the history of the studio.

One thing I loved was the complete lack of talking heads. What do I mean by that? There is no new footage of people sitting in a chair talking to the camera. It's all archival footage and voiceovers. It's an immensely refreshing alternative style of documentaries. The director, Don Hahn succeeds in what he set out to do. Wonderfully the film is not about him. Besides the narration he appears briefly throughout the film. This is only to show the audience that he was there and is qualified to tell this story. You can tell that it's a very personal film for him.

There is a lot of great archive footage that the filmmakers managed to put together coherently. One of the best moments is a shot of executive Jeffrey Katzenberg waving off interviews on the red carpet premiere of The Lion King following an article that, much to Roy Disney's annoyance, proclaimed Katzenberg the guy who was saving Disney Animation. Another great point is during a game of Jeopardy where a minor revolt at the studio became a category after Peter Schneider decided to change the title of Basil of Baker Street to The Great Mouse Detective (Someone sent around a fake memo saying all the film titles would be changed).

As a major Disney animation fan who thought he knew a lot about the films and how they were made I was surprised by how much of the reality I didn't know. It was quite nice to see the people involved with that decade shown at times broken and others joyous. This documentary shows the miracle of creation. Certain points of the film are absolutely heartbreaking. One such moment is the discussion of Howard Ashman's death. Don Hahn's narration is brilliant and conveys just the right amount of emotion without being overly sappy.

★★★★

Muppet Treasure Island (1996) Review

Muppet Treasure Island is the best Muppet film to date. It has a perfect mixture of brilliant songs and a, dare I say, exquisite placing of the old characters in new roles and an incomparable performance by Tim Curry. Can you tell I like it yet? Just wait there's more.

Sort of like Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, Treasure Island (written by Robert Louis Stevenson) is a book that everyone knows the plot of. Even if they haven't read it. This film follows the same basic storyline with a few surprises. I don't want to accidently give away those surprises so I don't want to tell you which Muppet plays what character suffice it to say that The Great Gonzo and Rizzo The Rat play themselves.

It should come as no surprise the Muppet performers are superb. To a lot of people in the world these are living breathing characters. It's not enough to move the eyes evenly or match the mouth to the words. You have to inhabit the character. Performers like Dave Goelz and Steve Whitmire are better than most "real" actors in the world. The best human performance in the film is by Tim Curry who has been given his best role in years and his tactic is to out shine but not upstage the puppets. It's a thin line and he walks it beautifully.

The test of a really good song is one that I am willing to listen to over and over and over again. There is not a song in the film where I say, "glad that's over". Every song in the film is wonderfully written (and ahem massively singable). I can't pick a favorite song because they are all so unique from one another but all of them fit the soundtrack perfectly as a whole.

As I said this picture is the best Muppet film so far. Immensely entertaining and yet so simple and childlike. Jim Henson would be proud.

★★★★

Mulan (1998) Review

Let's face it. In the 1990's the bar on animation had been raised to its peak. With films like Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, Mulan had a lot to live up to and it doesn't. It's the weakest of the 90's Disney animated features.

Inspired by an early sixth century poem, Mulan tells the story of a free-spirited Chinese girl of the same name. Mulan (voiced by Ming-Na) is afraid that she will never bring her family honor so she decides to enter the army to battle the Huns lead by the supposedly evil Shan-Yu (Voiced by Miguel Ferrer). It's the only way that she can protect her father, a former soldier, from having to go. She cuts her hair and spends far too much of the film pretending to be a guy. She receives help from a shamed dragon (voiced by Eddie Murphy) who thinks that by helping her he can retake his place as a guardian over Mulan's family. To make a long story short Mulan manages to fight off the Hun army before being discovered.

This picture is really all over the place. There is no clear structure to the story nor does it have very interesting characters. I found Mulan to be rather whiny and selfish. She doesn't go to save her father. Just so she can be someone she likes looking at in the mirror. She's not sure what she really wants and so I don't feel any reason to root for her. Additionally I don't root for the bad guy because the filmmakers never bothered to explore what makes him tick. The only thing we hear is that he's mad about a wall being built.

The biggest issue I have with the film is the songs. There is no subtlety to them. The songwriters were trying to duplicate the Menken/Ashman collaborations so much that what they ended up with are songs that have no consistent form and don't really do anything to help the story or have the characters express what they can only express in song. I can't hum a single one of these songs.

The only thing that hints at a great film is the score. I distinguish the score from the songs as a way to further pan the songs in that they don't fit with the score as composed by one of the greatest composers in film history, Jerry Goldsmith. The animation is nice to look at but with the lack of structure and even less songs that I can get into, the film ends up being bogged down to a murky mess that did at one time have potential.

★★

More of a rant than ever before...

I lament for a time when films were praised based on their quality and not their popularity. Twilight wouldn't be believed to be the "best movies I've ever seen" and more people my age would be aware of Chaplin (who anyone who ever watches a film owes a debt to). Granted there are good films out there but you have to sift through fifteen bins of garbage before you even can find a film of higher quality. The ratio is not good.

All of the horror movies these days are either full of gore, sex, or people getting tortured physically. You know why? Because that's what is popular. That's the type of vulgar, impudent garbage the average filmgoer wants to see. Alfred Hitchcock never had to do that. He understood the subtleties needed for a horror film because he was a genius. Today you have the Eli Roth-like filmmakers who put torture and slashers on the screen and call it art.

Lately I have seen far too many stoner, gross-out comedies being made. They are not funny except to the subintelligent boils of the earth. Most are written as though there was an explosion at a used screenplay factory and then shoddily put together using fruit stripe gum. If you see a film by Mel Brooks you'd know he built jokes up properly. Now all I see are a lot of stupid punchlines

I have high standards. There isn't any way to sugarcoat it nor would I want to if there was a way. Perhaps my high standards are the reason I am so often disappointed. Who knows? Maybe if I didn't hold films to such a high standard I'd have been one of the fools who enjoyed Hangover Part II. That's why I proudly proclaim my standards because I know how great film can be. There is nothing I love more than going to the movies and I am never happier when I get to discuss films that I enjoyed. Therefore when I am not able to do that I am not happy.
So I say to many filmmakers of today, make me happy!

Perhaps this post was a bit mean spirited but, as Peter Finch said in Network, I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) Review

In 1968 damned dirty apes didn't take their filthy paws off Charlton Heston and a cultural phenomenon was born. It was an immediate success and spawned four sequels, two television series, a remake and a plethora of merchandise. I'm not going to bring about the differences between remakes and reboots because, let's face it, that's boring and arbitrary. Rise of the Planet of the Apes bears very little resemblance to the original Apes films and still manages to function on its own in a way that is surprisingly fresh and interesting so I decided to treat it as such.

Scientist Will Rodman (James Franco) lives and works in San Francisco. He's working on a chemical compound that is being tested on chimpanzees. This formula not only is increasing brain functionality, but Will thinks it will help his father's Alzheimer's (John Lithgow). When one chimp goes on a rampage during a share holders' meeting the project is forced to stop, Will and his co-worker Robert (Tyler Labine) must put down the test chimps. They soon realize the one chimp didn't have a bad reaction to the drug, but that she had a baby and was protecting her offspring. Will names the young chimp Caesar and takes him home and raises him. Caesar the chimp is showing signs of increased intelligence like his mother had shown. Caesar grows and grows and gets even smarter with Will at home. He's learned sign language and is much more intelligent than any other animal Will has worked with. Will decides to test his formula on his father and his father starts showing positive signs. He tells his boss what he did and the boss wants full research and experimenting done. When an incident takes Caesar away from Will, he must give up his beloved chimp and put him in an animal control center for monkey, chimps and apes. As Caesar finds difficulty to his new environment, he meets an orangutan who also knows sign language and they communicate on how to control things. Caesar soon finds himself the leader of the animals and decides he's had enough of the bad treatment by his human handlers (including Harry Potter's Tom Felton). Caesar is smart enough to come and go as he pleases and is able to get Will's latest chemical compound to increase the other animals' intelligence. Now that the primates are running the asylum, Caesar leads a rebellion. He gathers every ape and chimp there and then breaks into Will's work to free the other captives. As his rebellion grows and he gains more backers from the local zoo, Caesar leads his animal army to San Francisco's famed Golden Gate Bridge where it is animal vs. man for control of the future.

The technical wizards at Weta (would you trust anyone else to create motion capture?) have once again been able to create something rather extraordinary in the CGI. They have managed to mix said CGI and live-action seamlessly. One easily wonders where the human begins and the special effect ends. The apes have weight and happen to move much like they really would. One of the best performances in the film is that of a character that isn't really there. Andy Serkis plays Caesar with such a mesmerizing brilliance that we have to believe in Caesar and, surprisingly root for him to get what he wants by the end of the film even though what he wants is to kinda, sort of take over the world. Sure Caesar is a computer generated character but Serkis still created the basis for him and performed all his movements and were it not for the strict rules excluding computer-created characters from consideration I would expect Serkis to score a Best Supporting Actor Nomination.

The great effects and Serkis' performance don't help any of the human roles from being moderately boring and majorly underwritten, just as an example James Franco is just sort of there to show that not all humans are evil.

Even though some of the things that happen in the film are rather unrealistic (Chimpanzees are not 5'11" when standing upright) I was not bothered by them enough to be turned off the film.

★★★1/2

Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011) Review

As someone who hasn't ever really been drawn in by the whole Harry Potter craze I am actually delighted to report that I greatly enjoyed this one.

I don't know how to possibly elaborate on the plot beyond what ninety percent of the earth already knows. Certainly all the people who read this blog know the storyline so I'm not going to tell you about the plot. Besides, I just returned from short term disability and am feeling kind lazy so I'm just going to give my review.

The film is a highly satisfying conclusion for both fanatics as well as the casual observer. Every question one might have wondered previously is answered. Especially for the Potter-illiterate individuals like myself who haven't read the books. So for all six of you out there don't worry it makes sense. One of my biggest criticisms for the first part of the finale was that there was too much that I had to have explained by an expert. Anyway there are many good things about the film and, regrettably one bad thing. The best thing is the performance by Alan Rickman. As Severus Snape he is powerful, complex and most of all captivating. I found myself completely drawn in and moved by his performance in a way I did not expect. His first scene features him atop a tower looking out at the landscape. Talk about a face saying a thousand words. In that one shot everything about his character makes sense. This is furthered later on when we see a long montage covering events in the last seven films. This sequence is not as drawn out as it could have been but lingers just the right amount of time in the film.

There are other great things like the final battle between the good guys and the bad guys. I'm not sure what those magic beams were made of but they do look incredibly painful and the film was not unnecessarily loud or overrun with over the top visual effects. Michael Bay should take notes on how it's done.

My earlier statement about the one bad thing does not happen until the end. After the climax of the film we fade to black and then see a title saying "19 Years Later". All the kids are now in their thirties and have their own kids who they are sending off to school. This epilogue could have been axed and I would be able to give the film four stars but it's there and I can't. Everyone ends up with who you'd expect and have 1-3 children. This Disneyish-everybody-gets-what-they-wish-for-happy-ending cheapens the whole thing for me. It completely feels tacked on and in my opinion, insults the audience. I've been told that it's in the book but that doesn't mean it had to be in the movie. I would have been happy without it.

Still I am overall praising the film's brilliant use of sets, costumes, special effects and in particular Alan Rickman's performance.

★★★1/2

 

The Last of the Mohicans (1992) Review

Easily one of the most spectacularly crafted films of the nineties and unfortunately it is also one of the most overlooked and underrated.

British and French troops do battle in colonial America, with aid from various native American war parties. The British troops enlist the help of local colonial militia men, who are reluctant to leave their homes undefended. A budding romance between a British officer's daughter and an independent man who was reared as a Mohican complicates things for the British officer, as the adopted Mohican pursues his own agenda despite the wrath of different people on both sides of the conflict

The final sequence is possibly one of the greatest climaxes in film history. There is no dialogue during the final battle. Only a strongly composed musical score. Even the final dialogue atop the mountain by Russell Means is phenomenal. We see in his face the end of his people and believe it. Additionally there is the brilliant cinematography and gorgeous untamed landscape that is consistently seen in the film.

Director Michael Mann has managed something quite extraordinary in that he was able to make a version of James Fenimore Cooper's novel that is equal to the 1936 version starring Randolph Scott, if not able to surpass it.

There aren't enough adjectives in any thesaurus or dictionary to describe my love of this picture. Fantastic, beautiful, unbelievable, exquisite, perfection all come to mind in addition to ones that I don't even have enough time to list. The Last of the Mohicans is largely one of the major reasons I want my life to be in film. It is one of the first films I was aware of and remains after all these years to be one of my absolute favorite films.

★★★★

Super 8 (2011) Review

I'm a very big fan of Steven Spielberg as well as Roger Corman, George A. Romero and those old 1950s sci-fi cheese fests. Super 8 plays like a tribute to all of that with even a little bit of The Goonies thrown in.

The year is 1979 and a group of junior high age kids are making a movie about zombies using a Super 8 camera and their own homemade makeup and production value. One night while filming a scene by a railroad track they witness a pickup truck crash into a train. The train derails nearly killing all of the kids and allows something to escape from one of the cars. The kids start to notice strange things happening in their hometown. Dogs and people disappear, the government takes over patrolling the town, there is several occurrences of unexplained destruction. They start investigating the circumstances and they discover a large government conspiracy and the strong possibility of an extra-terrestrial life.

When you have a film like this there is one thing required of the parents. That's for them to fade into the background. In this film the focus is mostly on the kids as it should be because they are by far the most interesting characters. The whole picture is an example of a great film being made without overloading the audience with CGI effects or loud noises. I suggest Michael Bay takes some notes on this picture.

There are a lot of unrealistic scenes and aspects in the film. During one scene the kids are filming part of their movie outside a teacher's house. All the military personnel either don't notice them or don't care that they might end up filming sensitive material. Additionally I have been told that the backpacks that the kids carry in the film were not actually. Don't know if that's true since I wasn't alive at that time. Despite those unrealistic components I don't really care. I was interested enough in what was happening in the film to let it go and believe me those criticisms are minor compared to the praise I have for the film.

This is the first real good film of the summer. To use a frequent phrase in the film it's mint.

★★★1/2

Be Kind Rewind (2008) Review

This movie relies on one thing. That every character in it is stupid enough to go along with its premise. Be Kind Rewind tells the unlikely story of a small video store on the verge of collapse, literally. There's only a couple of customers who are willing to get their videos (yes, videos because they have no DVD) from it. The store, named Be Kind Rewind, is run by a single clerk named Mike (Mos Def) and crashed by his idiot paranoid friend Jerry (Jack Black). Jerry is so convinced that the government is controlling his mind by way of the power plant he lives next to, that he attempts to sabotage it. He is of course electrocuted. Instead of dying he is magnetized and inadvertently erases all the videos in the store. Don't ask me if that is really possible. I've never met a magnetic person to ask them. Anyway Mike and Jerry decide to reshoot the entire catalog themselves with an old camera and a budget of about zero dollars. They begin to make more money with their "Sweded" versions of the films (including Ghostbusters, Driving Miss Daisy, Men In Black, The Lion King, Rush Hour 2) then they ever did renting the real ones. "Sweded" means they are more expensive because they have to be imported from Sweden. Sweden actually has a very lax stance on file-sharing and so there is a LOT of piracy in Sweden.

No way could any of this happen in real life but guess what? I don't care because it's all whimsical and whimsy is what writer-director Michael Gondry excels at. Jack Black has rarely even made me smile but his role is the best in the film. One particular moment where he makes up the lyrics to Ghostbusters had me laughing quite a lot. Mos Def on the other hand was a mental strain. He mumbles through the whole film and only emotion is whining. As a cinephile I truly enjoyed the idea behind the film and found myself asking myself how I would remake a smaller version of my favorite movies.

Whether their plan works or not I won't tell you nor will I inform you if Hollywood believes Mike and Jerry's work to fall under piracy or parody but I will say that this was an enjoyable film. I suppose that the people in the area are paying for a twenty minute version of a movie starring their neighbors but I myself don't know my neighbors enough to want to pay a dollar a minute for something that is far below the quality of the original. Maybe I should go knock on their door? Nah.

★★★

Thelma & Louise (1991) Review

What this pictures amounts to brilliance and art. It is quite possibly the greatest road picture ever made. Yes, even better than Easy Rider. Those who might be aware of the fact that Easy Rider is one of my favorite Dennis Hopper films will know that me saying a better road film exists is an accomplishment.

As the film opens we meet Louise (Susan Sarandon), a waitress in a small Arkansas diner. During a lunch rush she takes a smoke break (in the kitchen) and calls her friend whose name is, yep you guessed Thelma (Geena Davis) and makes reference to a weekend trip to a cabin owned by a friend of Louise. Thelma is the polar opposite of Louise. She is married to a moronic hothead rug salesman named Darryl (Christopher McDonald). Thelma is so timid that she decides to wait until Darryl leaves for work, then she leaves him a note and takes his handgun (in case of bears or a serial murderer) and packs up to go on the trip with Louise. Louise herself has a boyfriend named Jimmy (Michael Madsen). He is short-tempered like Darryl but is far more well-meaning. Before Thelma and Louise arrive at their destination Thelma wants to stop at a roadside bar. Although at first unwilling to stop, Louise agrees to after she is reminded that it is also Thelma's vacation. There the pair meets a mysterious man named Harlan (Timothy Carhart) who takes an interest in Thelma and flirts with her all night. They end up in the parking lot of the bar where, after Thelma refuses to have sex with Harlan, he beats her and attempts to rape her. Louise appears brandishing the handgun. Harlan lets Thelma go but not without saying he should have raped Thelma anyway and adding a few more expletives thrown at the two women. Louise shoots and kills him. Based on the evidence against them and lack of physical evidence the two flee. Harlan's body is soon discovered and it doesn't take the police long to suspect Thelma and Louise had something to do with it. The investigation is lead by Hal Slocumb (Harvey Keitel) who immediately is sympathetic to the pair and believes that everything is not quite how it seems. As Thelma and Louise head to Mexico they keep meeting a young hitchhiker named J.D. (Brad Pitt). He turns out to be a thief and takes advantage of Thelma in order to steal the sixty-six hundred dollars given to Louise by Jimmy. Things for the women spiral more and more out of control as they try to escape with their lives. Instead of going directly from Oklahoma through Texas to Mexico the two travel around and end up going Louise insists on not going through Texas. Something happened to her in Texas years earlier that she refuses to talk about. Thelma is able to figure out Louise was raped and received no help from the police. That, we learn, is the reason for her earlier reactions about Thelma and Harlan.

The film has been discussed left and right about its apparent anti-male quality. I have never thought of this film as anti-male. Sorry, I don't relate to Harlan or feel sympathetic to the sleazy truck driver that gets his rig blown up for being a pig. The truth is that Thelma and Louise are not meant to be role models. The shooting of Harlan is the biggest mistake either one of the women could possibly make. Those mistakes continue with holding up a convenience store, trusting J.D. and locking a police officer in the truck of his car. Eventually the two go for a Bonnie and Clyde/Young Guns 2 ending as they drive their Thunderbird off a cliff.

The performances in the film are brilliant. Obviously all the leads are great but I was more moved by the performance given by Christopher McDonald who is unfortunately mostly known for his roles is bad comedies like Happy Gilmore and Flubber. Near the end of the film there is a shot of Darryl who sits at his home staring at the television on the verge of tears. We see on his face the realization of his mistakes and what he has lost. That shot only lasts for about ten seconds but what a shot.

I have one negative criticism for the film and it happens at the last shot. Instead of trusting the audience enough to follow the women's car off the cliff with a more somber score director Ridley Scott opts for a happier freeze with the car in mid-air then fades to white. As the credits role we see some snapshots reprising earlier moments in the film along with a cheesy soundtrack choice by Hans Zimmer. If you pick up the film on DVD take a look at the original ending. It's far superior.

I have enjoyed the films of director Ridley Scott and Geena Davis and Harvey Keitel and Michael Madsen and Susan Sarandon. When you add all that enormous talent you have a fantastic film.

★★★1/2

The Blues Brothers (1980) Review

There was a day when comedies were actually comedic. Only certain films brought the right combination of a great director, cast, and script. In the case of The Blues Brothers you can add a great soundtrack on top of that.

Jake (John Belushi) and Elwood (Dan Aykroyd) Blues are brothers/musicians who are on a mission from God. That's their code for trying to raise money to save the orphanage they grew up in from foreclosing. After Jake is released from prison, he and Elwood start to bring their old band back together so that they can play a charity show to raise the money. Along the way they are chased by police, Nazis, a country band, a bartender and a mystery woman.

Written by John Landis and Aykroyd and directed by Landis The Blues Brothers is a fun picture that I can't get enough of. Usually I am so irritated by John Belushi that I want to punch him square in the jaw. That's not the case with his role as Jake. He brings his usual loudmouth slob down to a dull roar and if I as a film critic and not a music critic can say, he actually has quite a good singing voice. Aykroyd is Belushi's silent partner and straight man. His facial expression never changes and he never removes his sunglasses (Belushi removes his once) not even when it's 106 miles to Chicago and they have a full tank of gas and half a pack of cigarettes and it's dark. Sorry, I couldn't resist quoting one of my favorite lines.

There's about thirty cameos in the film (the best ones from such musicians as Ray Charles, Aretha Franklin, James Brown and Cab Calloway among others) and contains about five hundred and eighty-two car crashes (all within about ten minutes of each other). The best way to do cameos is not mention that the person is who they are. That's something that the filmmakers are aware of and play it beautifully.

I highly recommend this picture.

★★★

Keeping Mum (2005) Review

★★★

Here's a wickedly funny movie that you don't have to be British to appreciate. Set in the small English country parish of Little Wallop, Keeping Mum tells the story of a priest named Walter Goodfellow (Rowan Atkinson) who is so preoccupied with writing the perfect sermon, that he doesn't realize his wife Gloria (Kristin Scott Thomas) is on the verge of having an affair with her golf instructor Lance (Patrick Swayze) and that his seventeen year old daughter is consistently going a number of inappropriate relationships with unsuitable boyfriends and his son is terrified to go to school. This continues until the arrival of a nanny whose supposed name is Grace Hawkins (Maggie Smith). Almost instantaneously Grace becomes a part of the family as she starts tending to their needs and removing those causing problems.

This picture is a black comedy which insists on taking a slightly sinister approach that is enormously refreshing. It doesn't rely on gross out gags and poorly developed characters. Instead it focuses on very sincere actors giving very sincere performances all of them are perfect in their particular roles. Rowan Atkinson has always had a talent for playing massively inept individuals with a certain charm while Patrick Swayze gives, in my opinion, his best performance. He's so sleazy in this picture that you get the feeling that if you touched him you'd catch some sort of disease that there is no diagnosis or cure for. The true star of the film though is Maggie Smith. She gives a darker rather more sinister version of Mary Poppins. Grace is extremely kind-hearted but is not above bashing someone's head in with a frying pan if it suits her.

The violence and nudity in the film is under control so there is no reason to not enjoy the movie.

 

The Hangover Part II (Review) 2011

In the more than twenty-three years I have been going to the movies I have only walked out of two films. The first time was during Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. The second time was last night during The Hangover Part II.

Two years after the bachelor party in Las Vegas Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), Alan (Zach Galifianakis) and Doug (Justin Bartha) travel to Thailand (referred to by Alan as Thighland). The guys wake up the next day in Bangkok not remembering the night before. So begins a reprehensible journey to discover what they did.

The Hangover Part II is devoid of any worth or soul. The entire picture makes light of realities in Thailand and says that they are funny. They aren't. Prostitution, Trafficking, animal abuse, riots, poverty etc. should not be used as entertainment like this. Everyone involved in this atrocity should be ashamed of themselves. Its attempts to "push the envelope" are disgusting and shameful. It doesn't border on the edges of bad-taste because to say that would be to imply that it had any taste at all. The last thing I heard was a transsexual prostitute saying to a man and I quote, "My load in you and your load on the floor" endquote.

Seven years ago when I walked out of Anchorman I was bored. When I walked out of this film I was offended and refused to subject myself to any more garbage. From speaking to others who did stay I am glad I didn't.

 It is presently June 4, 2011 and I think I can reserve this picture a spot on my list of the ten worst films.

No star rating

Single White Female (1992) Review

Jennifer Jason Leigh and Bridget Fonda star in this film that stresses the importance of background checks. Allison "Allie" Jones (Fonda) is a software designer in New York City. While her professional life is on the rise her personal one is in a freefall. After she discovers that her fiancé Sam (Steven Weber), slept with his ex-wife she banishes him from her two bedroom apartment. Allie is now in need of a roommate. So she puts an ad in the newspaper looking for a roommate. Every single applicant is not right, until the appearance of Hedra "Hedy" Carlson (Leigh). Hedy seems to be the perfect roommate and very quickly fills the void left in Allie's life after Sam's departure. The two girls' friendship deepens when Hedy brings home an adorable, and very expensive, puppy. At first Allie objects to the idea of a pet but quickly becomes attached to it. After about a month Allie reconciles with Sam and they begin to discuss moving in together again much to Hedy's discomfort. Eventually Hedy's more disturbed side begins to surface as she tries to be more and more like Allie even going so far as to change her hairstyle to match Allie's exactly. Hedy has had issues since the age of nine when her twin sister drowned in an accident. Since then Hedy has not been the same. Hedy blames herself and seeks to replace her twin.

Directed by Barbet Schroeder, who is perhaps best known for directing the exquisite Reversal of Fortune, the film starts off as an effective psychological thriller. Leigh (one of my favorite actresses) gives an intensely creepy and yet reserved performance. The audience sympathizes with Hedy in some strange way. In a way that reminds me of Judi Dench in Notes on a Scandal it is a performance in which we wish it could be different for her despite our head telling us to hate her.

Unfortunately the last act of the film transforms it into a standard monster-in-the-house-slasher picture. Allie ducks around air vents and behind furniture while Hedy chases her calling for her. I wish the film could just avoid that cliché and stick to what worked in the first two-thirds of the film.

★★★

How I Review

I am not going to review something according to other people's tastes. For example a good friend of mine truly enjoyed Anchorman: the Legend of Ron Burgundy. That remains as the only film in the history of my life I have ever walked out on. He tells me that I can't be a good critic because I don't go along with the rest of earth's moviegoers. Are you kidding? Should I be ashamed for not agreeing? No because I've always been proud of my critical eyes. When I find a film I love there is nothing I enjoy more than giving it praise.

So what do I look for? First of all I look for an emotional connection. If it's a comedy I expect to laugh, if it's a drama I expect to want things to work out for the characters, if it's a horror I expect to be scared. As far as I am concerned when you have a comedy that doesn't make me laugh, you have a failed comedy. Same thing with horror and being scared. However if you have a drama that doesn't make me cry you don't exactly have a failed drama. Perhaps they weren't going for that.

Priest (2011) Review

★1/2

In as few words as possible this film is all over the place. It never bothers to create a coherent storyline or introduces new characters effectively

The main character in the film has no real name. He is simply called Priest (Paul Bettany). Set in what I assume is a post-apocalyptic future; Priest tells the story of a man who defies the church by going after the vampires who have abducted his niece. He sets off on a journey with a trigger-happy sheriff whose name I cannot recall. Haggis maybe? The bad guy is a self-referred human vampire. In fact he's the only one of the vampires who can be in daylight and doesn't look like sausage skin filled with gelatin. As far as the story, it moves so fast that I found it difficult to keep up. Eventually I started asking, "Who's that guy?" Additionally I must say that vampires are really not PG-13 material. I really wish the filmmakers had gone all the way to an R rating instead of simply playing it safe.

The best sequence is in the beginning where we see an animated prologue. That was a lot of fun. That's only the first ten minutes.

The film is based on a popular Manga series, which you are supposed to read backwards. I can't help but think that if I had watched the film backwards it might make more sense.

Biutiful (2010) Review

The majority of this picture is sloppy. It's underwritten and poorly directed. The film doesn't seem to have a conscious storyline. The only saving grace is Javier Bardem's performance. He's fantastic. It only furthers to prove his talent when you factor in what I feel about the screenplay. It's not the way people talk and seems fakey (if you haven't seen Underworld with Denis Leary and Joe Mantegna that word might be lost on you).

Uxbal (Bardem) is a tragic hero and father of two (one is aged 7 while the other is aged 9) who's sensing the danger of death. About twelve minutes into the film we learn, along with Uxbal, that he has cancer. He is given only a couple of months provided his body reacts well to chemotherapy. The entire film is about his downward spiral.

I've seen Babel and 21 Grams and I can tell you that I don't see any real substantial talent in this film's director/co-writer. Alejandro González Iñárritu strikes me as lazy. Rather than spend any portion of his films getting you to care enough about his characters he simply drops tragedy upon tragedy on you. A director like David Cronenberg is a master at mixing the decay and tradgedy of a character with a hope of redemption. Iñárritu is not a master at that.


As I said the only saving grace is Javier Bardem's performance. In this film Bardem manages to create a multi-faceted character that grabs hold of the audience in such a magnificent way that it's easy to understand why Bardem has been nominated for acting Oscars more than twice. Sporting a ponytail and his usual physique Bardem has the appearance of a lion and yet at several moments in the film he plays Uxbal as a mouse uncertain of his future but unwilling to accept his fate. At one point he tells the doctor that he forgot to fast prior to having his blood drawn in the hope that maybe the tests were wrong. "Fasting is only a formality" the doctor says. One could slow down the next shot of Uxbal and pinpoint the exact moment that his soul is crushed. If not for Bardem's performance I would say skip it.

★★1/2

Bottom Ten of 2010

At a special request of a friend of mine I decided to write a list of the ten worst films of 2010. Normally I wouldn't do this especially since it's now May. However the more I thought about it the more I decided it could be really fun and a nice way to exact some revenge on movies that stole a portion of my life away.

10. Robin Hood
9. The Last Song
8. Jonah Hex
7. Piranha
6. The Expendables
5. Marmaduke
4. Clash of the Titans
3. Grown-Ups
2. Resident Evil: Afterlife
1. A Nightmare on Elm Street

Paranormal Activity (2007) Review

Not often is there a film that keeps me up at night. Among the ones that do: The Omen, Evil Dead and An American Werewolf in London. Three days ago I watched Paranormal Activity for the first time and could not, for the life of me, fall asleep that night.

Flowing in the same vein as The Blair Witch Project, Quarantine and Cloverfield this particular film tells the story of a young, middle class couple whose happy life in suburbia is disturbed by a presence that may or may not be demonic. One thing is for certain. There is something that is bothering them and it happens at night. Micah (Micah Sloat) decides to set up a video camera to catch the nightly occurrences. The first night nothing happens but the bedroom door moving. Micah thinks it's a bunch of bull and makes constant jokes about the situation. Katie (Katie Featherson), who has had issues with the same malevolent force since she was eight years old, is convinced there is an apparition after her soul. It is not until the arrival of a psychic that the couple discover it is not a ghost but a demon that is terrorizing them. Every night gets worse and worse as Micah begins to become convinced that there is something in the house.

This is a truly great little horror film. What makes it so scary is that it is presented as factual events recorded on home video (although if you look at the end there is the usual copyright notice that says "the characters and events portrayed in this film are fictitious") as though someone got a hold of the tapes and released them. Little subtle effects, such as powdered footprints from an invisible source appearing before our very eyes or Katie being pulled out of the bed or (my favorite) unexplained shadows appearing on the wall, help to create that sense of realism. Personally I couldn't figure out how they accomplished many of these moments and since I couldn't figure how it was done my mind simply accepted that what I was seeing was real.

There is a slow burn to the film that works well. We slowly build from the atmospheric and creepy to the truly terrifying. The film doesn't overload the viewer with violence or images of the demon. Instead the film sticks to that old adage that what is in our imaginations is far more frightening than what we see.

At the start of the film the acting does not feel natural at all. It's as though writer-director Oren Peli only put the first several scenes in the film as filler and gave limited thought to how his actors should approach the roles at the beginning but somehow I found myself caring about the characters and their plight.

Don't worry. I have since been able to fall asleep.

★★★1/2

We’re Back! A Dinosaur’s Story (1993) Review

This movie is like nails on a chalkboard. It's noisy and quite obnoxious to look at. Even more so when you consider that the film was produced by Steven Spielberg, whose other Dinosaur picture released the same year is so pleasant to listen to and watch.

Captain New Eyes (Walter Kronkite) travels back in time and feeds four dinosaurs his Brain Grain cereal. They are a Tyrannosaurus named Rex (John Goodman), a Triceratops named Woog (René Le Vant), a Pterodactyl named Elsa (Felicity Kendal) and a Parasaurolophus named Dweeb (Charles Fleischer). The cereal makes them intelligent and non-violent. Since the dinosaurs have gained the power of speech and reasonable thought they agree to go to a modern-day New York to grant the wishes of the children there. They are supposed to meet up with Dr. Bleeb (Julia Child) who runs The Museam of Natural History. In the first three minutes of their arrival in the Big Apple the dinosaurs meet a tough-talking kid named Louie (Joey Shea) and a neglected rich girl named Cecilia (Yeardley Smith). Eventually they come across the evil brother of New Eyes. His name is Professor Screw Eyes and he's voiced by Kenneth Mars. Basically Screw tricks the Dinosaurs into taking his Brain Drain, the antidote to his brother's Brain Grain. This reverts the dinosaurs back to being "monsters" and Louie and Cecilia must find a way to get the dinosaurs back to being goofy.

The drawing style in the film is not worth viewing. It's wooden and grainy. There is only one song in the picture and it's not a good one. And can someone explain how becoming more intelligent changes physical appearance and the color of an individual? Additionally when the dinosaurs travel to the present day they are somehow knowledgeable about things like lights and cars and know how to act like balloons in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade (which incidentally is going in the wrong direction). I find it a little irksome that we are supposed to feel okay with the fact that normal dinosaurs are monsters. Why did Spielberg allow the dinosaurs as monsters here but wanted to portray them as animals in Jurassic Park?

Much like Ferngully: The Last Rainforest the film fails on many levels but on one that it does succeed is it's villain. Professor Screw Eyes is theatrical and sinister at the same time. As a comparison every other character is boring and stupid. He's in the film just the right amount of time. There's nothing like a good, well-written and acted bad guy.

★

Once Upon A Forest (1993) Review

William Hanna and Joseph Barbera are not known for pathos. That's why it's so surprising that they produced this wholly depressing animated film. This whole film is something I would expect from Don Bluth. Not the creators of The Jetsons, Scooby Doo, The Flintstones and Tom And Jerry.

Once upon a Forest tells the tale of small woodland creatures whose world becomes in danger due to man. Following a deadly gas leak a hedgehog named Russell, a mouse named Abigail and a mole named Edgar travel to another forest in order to find a certain plant to save her before their badger friend dies. Their entire families were most likely killed by the gas but we don't know for sure. The young badger girl's family is most certainly killed (we see their bodies) save for her uncle who has his own horrible experiences with man. Along their journey they escape from a frightening looking owl, backhoes and bulldozers referred to as "yellow dragons", and save a young bird from certain death. It's just one bad event after another.

The film sort of has a happy ending. I must put large emphasis on the "sort of". Even though the badger girl is saved her family is still dead. There is no feeling of hope throughout the picture and it leads to quite an unpleasant experience for the audience especially children. The color of the film is dark and gray. One gets the same feeling from it that one would get if driving from sunshine into an oncoming thunderstorm.

There are no real optimistic moments in the film to combat the gloomy scenes. When Disney made The Lion King they had juxtaposition and balance so that people could appreciate the lightness by showing a darker side of the movie.  Even in Bambi when the title character is faced with an extreme tragedy he is able to rise above it. In Once Upon a Forest the characters are faced with a major tragedy and the possibility of more tragedy. Not a good way to structure a family film.

I'm not put off by the "go-green" type of message in the film like I am with Ferngully: The Last Rainforest. What I am put off by is the complete lack of cheerfulness in the film. Never have I felt more depressed about an animated film in my life.

★

Enemy at the Gates (2001) Review

This is a very unusual American film about WWII. There are no Americans. This is because Enemy at the Gates takes place in Stalingrad. Among the explosions and shooting there is a much closer battle that emerges between two snipers, one Russian and one German. Directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud, Enemy at the Gates tells the mostly true story of Vassili Zaitsev (Jude Law), a shepherd boy from the Urals of Russia, who after proving his marksmanship to a political officer named Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) and Nikita Khrushchev (Bob Hoskins who looks remarkably like the real thing), is promoted to sniper division. There he becomes a legend of the battle of Stalingrad (thanks largely due to Danilov's skill at public relations) taking down one German officer at a time. This gets the attention of the Nazis who bring in their best sniper. Major Konïg (Ed Harris) has never failed to kill a target and, as Vissili says at one point in the film, is a better marksman.

This is a highly suspenseful film that creates that classic cat-and-mouse relationship between the hero and the villain. It isn't about the battle around them so people looking for big explosions are probably going to want to shut off the movie after the first ten minutes. The best scenes are the ones in which each one knows that the other is there but doesn't quite have a clear shot. This is largely accomplished by the production design. It was done by Wolf Kroeger, who is a production designer who understands the subtleties necessary in war films.

Earlier I mentioned that this was only mostly based on a true story is because of a rather Hollywood like love triangle that exists between Danilov, Zaitsev and a Russian Jew named Tania Chernova (Rachel Weisz). I don't think that love triangle existed but I'm willing to let it go because the truth is Rachel Weisz is a very nice to look at. Besides, it's a lot more believable than the love triangle in another World War II movie released the same year.

I wonder who decided that all of the Russian characters shouldn't have Russian accents. Apparently the Allies consisted of two main countries because the only accents I heard were English and American (thanks for the effort Mr. Harris). Even Annaud's frequent collaborator Ron Perlman, who is not English, has an English accent while he plays a sniper who's supposed to help Vassili kill the bad guy.

★★★

Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (1984) Review

Zero Stars

This is an absolutely dishonorable depressing piece of trash. It's nothing but ninety minutes of teenagers being stabbed, strangled, impaled, mutilated and butchered. It's literally about the killing.

Thirteen people die throughout that ninety minutes. If you do the math that's one person every seven minutes. The majority of them are women. There was a time during the era of horror films where the camera sympathized with the damsel in distress. Even though Evelyn Ankers was attacked by the monster we want her to survive. Now we see the killing through the eyes of the culprit. The filmmakers force us to "enjoy" this. What's most disturbing to me is that this is called entertainment. Violence is not the issue but if it's mindless violence it's just that. Mindless.

The film is directed by Joseph Zito who is and has never been anything but an exploitation director. In the last sixteen years he has only directed two films and hasn't done anything since 2003. I really hope he is never able to return to the director's chair.

Normally I try to look for something good. There is nothing good in this picture. One man's garbage is still garbage.

What’s Wrong With 3D?

I hate to have this be a rant but 3D sucks as a way of looking at movies. Even with the best systems possible the picture is diluted and washed down. Many of the effort is spent extending the foreground and so the background becomes so terribly out of focus that the audience becomes light headed and dizzy. Most of the 3D movies out there now are action pictures and none of them are filmed in 3D. They are just transferred to 3D and so a lot of that fast action is lost because your eyes can't adjust properly. 2D is crisper, cleaner and doesn't charge an extra three dollars for admission. No wonder Avatar is the highest grossing picture.

Thor (2011) Review

Here's an interesting combination. Comic books, mythology, and Kenneth Branagh, the director of films like Henry V, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Hamlet. Seems a bit unlikely doesn't it?

Before we get into my real review I would like to analyse that "unlikely" reality. Comic books already have been compared with mythology by smarter people than I so I'm not going to try to add anything to that. However the works of William Shakespeare have always seemed to, at least by me, have lot in common with mythology. In his plays there is pathos, comedy, revenge, murder etc. All these things can easily be seen in many issues of Batman as well as in the stories of ancient Greece or Norse religions. Branagh has shown several times that he has the ability to direct films with those themes of ancient mythology. So, when we take the above paragraph into account we see that maybe he was the best choice for the helm.

The basic plot of the film is as follows. Thor (Christopher Hemsworth), son of Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and future king of Asgard, disobeys his father and attacks creatures known as Frost Giants. See, a few thousand years earlier Odin did battle with these creatures for the protection of the human race. The giants were banished from Asgard for eternity. The only way into Asgard is past a character known simply as The Gatekeeper but somehow some of the giants made it past him. Thor and his warriors convince The Gatekeeper to let them travel to destroy the Frost Giants. When Odin learns of Thor's arrogance and rash decision he takes his power and banishes him to live among humans until which time as he is found worthy enough to regain his immortality and powers. Thor is befriended by a young scientist named Jane Foster (Natalie Portman). The hero must learn how to blend in with these humans. All the while his villainous brother Loki becomes the acting king of Asgard.

One of my favorite things about the film was the performance by Hemsworth as the title character. He was a lot of fun to watch and the way he played off the other actors was great. He reminds me a lot of Heath Ledger who, as most people are aware, is one of my favorite actors. The way that he approaches the character is as it should be. Like a fish out of water. A much larger and arrogant Crocodile Dundee. Maybe it's because they are all Australian. Who knows?

The actual film begins with Thor landing on Earth. Then we travel back in time to see how he got there and after about an hour of screen time we return to where we started. I think it should have simply shown all the earlier events on Asgard and then gone to Earth. By then the audience is already enjoying the film.

Before I forget keep an eye out for the Stan Lee cameo. He's driving a truck used to try to remove Thor's hammer from a stone.

★★

Little Sparrows (2010) Review

Usually I am not a big fan of films about terminal illness. More often than not the illness is used as a way to bring about an emotional reaction from the audience that should come about naturally. It's a cheap shot and it insults the intelligence of the viewer. Among the films that do this are Beaches, A Walk to Remember and The Cure. There are films where the emotion comes out of the story and performances. Among those are Lorenzo's Oil, The Pride of the Yankees and Philadelphia. I think we can add Little Sparrows to the latter list.

In the midst of an Australian summer we meet three sisters. Nina (Nina Deasley) is a widow with two young children, Anna (Melanie Munt) is an unhappily married actress whose husband is a filmmaker and Christine (Arielle Gray) is a med student who has yet to come completely to terms with her sexuality. When their mother, Susan's (Nicola Bartlett) breast cancer returns, the family is faced with choices and uncertainty.
The film is set up by writer-director Yu-Hsiu Camille Chen as a documentary. The camera wobbles as though there is a camera man pretending to not be in the room and the film features cutaways where we see the women talking directly to the camera. A sort of confession. What helps this illusion of reality is the performances. All of the performers in the film are incredibly natural. Their roles seem to come out of somewhere so rarely seen in film today with the exception of some.

We spend approximately twenty minutes on each daughter's story. First we get some background on their lives (complete with the "interviews") and then get some sort of conflict (for example Anna's husband leaves her after it is revealed that she was having an affair) and then there is a scene in a hospital room where the girls have a heart to heart with their mother. The hospital room is where the real emotion comes out. The girls slowly break down into tears while their mother confesses something or describes how much she loves them. At the end of each daughter's story there is a scene at a cemetery where the audience is reminded of the final scene in Carrie sans the hand reaching out of the grave. What I mean is an ethereal, delicate feeling. Almost as though we are in the girls head while she dreams.

The film does not end with Susan's death. Sorry for those hoping it would. It avoids that cliché and instead ends with her getting a tattoo of three sparrows. One each to represent her daughters. Even the entire feel of the film is not one of despair. The first thing that Susan says after telling her husband James about the return of her cancer is, "I don't want any hysterics".

I think the world has a great new director and I'm very interested to see where her career goes from here.

★★★★

Fast Five (2011) Review

Here's a good, fun action picture that doesn't have to be in 3D for me to enjoy it.

As the fifth film in the Fast and The Furious series Fast Five (try saying that five times fast) reunites Vin Deisel and Paul Walker in the roles they played ten years earlier. Former cop Brian O'Conner (Walker) partners with ex-con Dom Toretto (Diesel) on the opposite side of the law. Since Brian and Mia Toretto (Jordana Brewster) broke Dom out of custody, they've blown across many borders to elude authorities. Now backed into a corner in Rio de Janeiro, they must pull one last job in order to gain their freedom. As they assemble their elite team of top racers, the unlikely allies know their only shot of getting out for good means confronting the corrupt businessman who wants them dead. But he's not the only one on their tail. Hard-nosed (and big bicepped) federal agent Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) never misses his target. When he is assigned to track down Dom and Brian, he and his strike team launch an all-out assault to capture them. But as his men tear through Brazil, Hobbs learns he can't separate the good guys from the bad. Now, he must rely on his instincts to corner his prey before someone else runs them down first.

Basically when you have a picture like this all you are supposed to do is sit down and suspend your disbelief for an hour and a half. That's what I did with this film. I knew what I was watching when I got my ticket. It was a relentless loud cars, pretty girls and massive destruction (I think this movie may take the record away from Blues Brothers for most car-crashes in a single film). The story could've used some thought as well as the dialogue but I'm willing to let that go since this movie is meant to be nothing more than Saturday afternoon entertainment.

It seems as though there was a competition between Dwayne Johnson and Vin Diesel as to who could get the bigger muscles. Although both of them are already known for their physical strength Johnson won that competion.

The film amounts to a video-game with the stunt players and drivers doing things that are incredibly impossible. The stunts in the film are fantastic. The stunt team (which comprises of about thirty people) are sure to get SAG nominations for their work.

At one point in the film two members of the team want to keep people out of a bathroom. What do they do? They blow up the pipes and send used food all over the bathroom. It's not funny. In fact if I hadn't been enjoying the picture at that point I'd have walked out. Additionally I don't find sexual statements made about women in films funny or tasteful. It's a knee-jerk reaction I have. Every critic has one.

★★★

The Green Hornet (2011) Review

★★★

Like many on this planet I was skeptical of a comic book movie starring Seth Rogen. My initial reaction was one of confusion. Will this be a spoof? Does this mean that Rogen will now be in dumb action pictures instead of dumb comedies?  When I say dumb I mean George of The Jungle dumb. Fortunately, and much to my surprise, I enjoyed this picture.

The Green Hornet was originally conceived as a juvenile adventure series on the radio in the 1930's. Then it became two separate movie serials in the 1940's as well a comic book and a network television program in the 1960's. Although some of the treatments of the character has been different over the years, most of them remain the same.

Britt Reid (Rogen) is a slacker. He only has one goal in life and that's to be the life of the party every day. After the death of his father Britt takes over the family business. The family business is a newspaper. Britt is assisted by his secretary Lenore (Cameron Diaz) and his chauffeur/mechanic/barista/martial arts expert Kato (Jay Chow) and becomes inspired to be a superhero but a different kind of superhero. He'll be a superhero that everyone thinks is a villain. Along with Kato he begins to take down L.A.'s Underworld. Enter the bad guy who goes by the hard to pronounce name of Chudnofsky (Christoph Waltz). He believes that The Green Hornet is muscling in on his territory. 

In most comic book films you have the hero who can do anything while the sidekick is there to make the hero look better. In this film those roles are reversed. Britt is an idiot. There's no kind way to say that. Kato is the genius who designs the weapons, does the fighting and makes the coffee. Britt takes all the credit. This was a nice flip on the hero/sidekick relationship.

The movie was a great mixture of action and that sarcastic, quick-witted humor of Seth Rogen's that so many have come to love. Christoph Waltz shows his talent at playing "cuddly" villians. Even though he is doing terrible things to other human beings he is incredibly entertaining to watch. I was most intrigued by the performance given by Jay Chow. He brought a calm serenity to Kato. The character is not a stereotype but a fully realized individual that the audience cares about. There's a fight scene between Britt and Kato that fluctuates between serious and comical. Comical whenever Britt gets hit and serious when Kato is injured. This is because we want Kato to receive justice for things that Britt has said and done.

At one point we see Chudnofsky's crew putting the word out on The Green Hornet. It's shown in split-screen. One person tells someone and then we get a new frame of them telling someone else while the first person continues on to spread the news. This happens over and over again until you are so unsure of which frame to watch that you just ignore what's happening altogether. Sure it was a quick way to show a lot happening and how much of a reach the bad guy has but fifteen frames on one screen is overkill.

Jane Eyre (2011) Review

Based upon the 1847 novel by Charlotte Brontë, Jane Eyre tells the story of an orphan girl by the name of Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska from last year's billion dollar hit Alice in Wonderland) who after years of abuse at an all-girl school travels to Thornfield House where she is employed as a governess (that's a fancy word for a nanny) by the dark, abrupt, almost sinister Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender). Jane and her employer soon become friends and she finds herself falling in love with him, much to the chagrin of herself and the head housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench). As time passes Jane learns that Mr. Rochester is harboring a very dark secret. Don't worry, I won't give away any spoilers suffice it to say that he isn't a vampire.

You know your movie is in trouble when the biggest criticism from me is the lead actress. Mia Wasikowska is not a particularly talented actress. In this film she is flat, lifeless and just plain boring. She is only "going through the motions" and delivers the lines as though she is reading them directly off cue cards. For the first two-thirds of the film she does no emoting whatsoever. Then in the last act of the film she does nothing but emote. By then I want to say "Frankly, my dear I don't give a damn". Her casting in the film has "studio" written all over it. She was the lead in a majorly successful film last year so it seems only natural that she would continue to be cast in lead roles despite not having enough talent to carry an entire film. There is an actress who also appears in the film by the name of Tamzin Merchant who would have been a far better choice for the title character.

Fear not fellow cinephiles. I did not hate everything about the film. As a matter of fact with the exception of the above paragraph I quite enjoyed the rest of the film. The performances by Michael Fassbender (who reminds me of a younger Daniel Day-Lewis) and Judi Dench are fantastic. Although could you expect any less from Judi Dench? Everything you need to know about both of their characters is subtly shown in their first scenes. For example Mr. Rochester is shown wearing a black hat and black coat with black trousers while riding a black horse with a black dog in tow. Those color choices, obviously no accident, automatically give us a feeling of foreboding and mystery around the character that we are intrigued by.

The cinematography, art direction, production design and costumes all fit together like the pieces of a gothic period puzzle. The film is sure to receive Oscar nominations in one or more of those categories. Cinematographer Adriano Goldman, whose work I must admit I am not familiar with, creates a bleak canvas of near-winter in the film, not just with exterior scenes, but the interior as well. One gets the feeling that it is colder inside the buildings then outside.

Overall, if asked by a friend, I'd recommend it but prepare to be unmoved and unaffected by Wasikowska's wooden acting.

★★1/2

Love and Other Drugs (2010) Review

Jake Gyllenhall and Anne Hathaway reunite for one of the most predictable movies of last year. Love and Other Drugs tells the tale of a charming pharmaceutical rep, named Jaime (Gyllenhaal), who meets a free-spirited painter named Maggie (Hathaway). He falls for her and the two begin a no-strings attached love affair (although that's only after she exposes herself to a doctor who's pretending Jaime is an intern). The only problem with that friends-with-benefits arrangement? Jaime wants to have a deeper relationship but Maggie doesn't. Why? Because she suffers from Early-onset Alzheimer's and does not want Jaime to take care of her.

There isn't much I can say about this movie. It's as though the director (Edward Swick) and writers (Charles Randolph, Edward Zwick, Marshall Herskovitz) think the audience has failed to see a romantic comedy/drama before. The movie is so predictable and formulaic that I sat there the whole time saying "Here comes the fight between Maggie and Jaime, now they're going to make up, Ah now they break up for good, Big surprise he does something selfless that she will realize she loves him for. Now they stay together." Guess what? All that happened. This is precisely why I can't exactly recommend this movie. If you seen one movie in this genre you've seen them all.

With every review I write I try to look for something good in the movie. Sometimes this is impossible. I looked for something good in this film and did in fact find it. The best thing about the movie is the performances, in particular by Anne Hathaway who never fails to give a gracious and unique performance. I'm glad that both of them were at least nominated for Golden Globes although I wish they had gotten Oscar nominations as well. If for nothing else than the fact that, although saddled with a clichéd eye-roller of a screenplay, they keep the film from being boring. That speaks volumes about their talent.

One more thing I have to mention. The film is rated R for strong sexual content, nudity, pervasive language, and some drug material. The nudity is largely one-sided (Gyllenhaal shows less skin than Hathaway). That's not necessary. The filmmakers don't need to show Anne Hathaway taking off her clothes. Yes, she is a very pretty girl but the only reason to show what they had her show was to get a higher box-office gross. I don't need to watch that in order to enjoy her films.

★★1/2

Conversation(s) With Other Women (2005) Review

★★★1/2

There are several good, small, dialogue driven movies but they are so difficult to find among the schlock that is out there. There is also so few directors who can handle such a movie. Among the ones that come to mind: Sidney Lumet, Richard Linklater, Joel and Ethan Coen. Judging by the way he handles this film, Hans Canosa can be added to that list.

When a man (Aaron Eckhart) and a woman (Helena Bonham Carter) flirt with each other at a wedding reception the tension between the two could be cut with a knife. They go up to the same hotel room where, during a night of passion and discussing their significant others, we discover that they are not as much of strangers as we once thought.

The entire film is edited in split-screen and rather than doing fast cuts we see different angles of the same scene. This is an original and interesting way to approach the film. Don't let the whole multiple things going on in the same picture thing frighten you away. There is a single frame version. Even if you do watch the split-screen, you could close your eyes and fully understand what is going on in the movie because there is so much well-written dialogue.

I'm going to risk offending some of her die-hard fans but I don't like Helena Bonham Carter in her Tim Burton movies or in her roles in the Harry Potter films. I much prefer her in roles like this one. Her films where she plays calm non-eccentrics are so much better than the loud, obnoxious ones we see so often.

Folks, you need to watch at least one of the two versions of the film. Preferably both of them.

Schindler’s List (1993) Review

During his review for Shining Through, Gene Siskel said that "It doesn't work to make a film about World War II in general and the Nazis in particular. A movie without some real bite on those subjects can really come across as trivial". I believe Schindler's List has that bite that Gene was talking about.

It tells the true story of Oscar Schindler (Liam Neeson), a German businessman who owns a factory. He witnesses the horrifying events of the Holocaust and the toll it takes on the Jewish people. Eventually, he creates a list of over 1100 Jews whom he saves from certain death. He bribes, schemes and cons members of the Nazi party to get Jews into his factory. Because the factory is a protected war industry a job there may guarantee longer life. At first all that Schindler cares about is making money. He's not exactly a good man. He's a womanizer, he's selfish, he drinks. But he did an extraordinarily good thing. This movie is absolutely incredible.

The director of the film (Steven Spielberg) always either is able to reduce an audience to tears or at the very least get some type of emotional reaction from the audience. Never have I seen a movie that leaves me more at a loss for words. Never have I seen a movie that moves me this profoundly and deeply. Spielberg never talks down to the audience. With this film he completely respects the audience's intelligence and maturity. With this film he says, "I don't blame people for the horrors of the past. This was something we can't allow to happen again"

I was extremely impressed by all the performances. In particular Ralph Fiennes as the real-life Nazi commander Amon Goeth. He's frightening and, in my opinion, deserved the Oscar over Tommy Lee Jones

The musical score, as composed by John Williams, is performed by world renown violinist Itszhak Perlman. This decision creates a haunting and highly memorable score and fits so perfectly with the black and white camera work.

I wouldn't let the violence of the movie dissuade parents from showing their children the film. Although the movie is extremely violent there is a purpose for it and it's a very important film.

★★★★

Rio (2011) Review

Here we are more than four months into 2011 and overall the films so far this year have been disappointing. Fortunately we appear to have broken out of that rut with Rio.

Blu (voice of Jesse Eisenberg) is one of the last two remaining Blue Cockatoos in the world. He lives with his bookstore owning best friend Linda (voice of Leslie Mann) in Minnesota. He has a good life but is unable to fly. One day a doctor of Ornithology comes to the bookstore and convinces Blu and Linda to go to Rio De Janeiro to meet the other Blue Cockatoo and save the species. Her name is Jewel and she is voiced by the always charming Anne Hathaway. Jewel wants freedom. Unfortunately for her she is chained to Blu after bird smugglers steal them from an aviary. Then they escape and go on an adventure where they meet a toucan named Rafeal (George Lopez), a bulldog named Luiz (Tracy Morgan) and a pair of song and dance birds (Jaime Foxx and Will. I. Am.)

The only criticism I have for the movie is the use of slow motion in one scene. I'm tired of seeing that in every animated movie these days. It's a cliché and it doesn't add anything special for me.

I am most surprised by the fact that, although they normally irritate me, George Lopez and Tracy Morgan are great in this movie. I found myself enjoying the movie much more when Lopez' character came on. Both of them are kept in check enough that they don't take over the screen. As I said I adore Anne Hathaway. Every one of her films I enjoy enough to watch more than once. Well, except maybe Bride Wars.

The movie is charming and bright and colorful and fun. Even the human villains are more bungling idiots than a real serious threat. It wouldn't fit this movie for them to die so instead each one of them is embarrassed beyond belief.

This is the best movie I have seen this year.

★★★★