Shame (2011) Review

Brandon (Michael Fassbender) is a successful businessman in his 30's living in New York. To most of the people around him, Brandon appears calm and confident, but inside his home he wrestles with a powerful demon. Addiction. He is obsessed with pornography (even views it at work) and only desires to engage in short-term relationships with women that allow him to keep the world at arm's length. The grim routine of Brandon's life is upset when his sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan) stops by for an extended visit without notice. Brandon and Sissy, although close, are polar opposites. Where Brandon is reserved and introverted, Sissy is outgoing and flashy. As Sissy forces her brother to look closely at his current situation and confront his past, he comes to understand the circumstances that made him the man he has become and his seemingly unbreakable cover of calm begins to crack.

Michael Fassbender is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors with each performance I see. This film just put the man on a list of actors to watch. Take for instance the scene in which Brandon, while walking on a pier, comes to the realization that he cannot overcome his addiction and in a rare moment breaks down and releases his suppressed emotions. This scene is played with such heartbreaking realism that we feel the need to root for Brandon where earlier in the film we might find him predatory, abusive and overall unlikeable. Fassbender's ability to play that unlikeable man who we find ourselves hoping the best for is nothing short of extraordinary.

The film is directed by Steve McQueen (no, not that one) and there's several decisions he made in the filming that need to be mentioned. Many of the scenes feature very long shots. I'm a big fan of very few cuts. What's so great about long shots you might wonder? The most important thing is this allows us to see everything that is happening. When a director includes too many cuts I am reminded that I am watching a movie. With Shame the phrase "fly on the wall" comes to mind. Everything that happens, including a very uncomfortable scene between Sissy and Brandon, unfolds for us in long takes. This technique only further shows the talent of the film's lead actor.

With regards to the sex scenes, McQueen takes an approach that I am a firm believer in. A sex scene in a film should be sensual in nature and not sexual. The film features one such scene in particular. Brandon goes to the apartment of two women and sleeps with them both. While watching this scene I am reminded of The English Patient's love scenes.

A brilliantly worded script by McQueen and fully-fleshed out competent performance by Fassbender recommend multiple viewings.

★★★★

American Reunion (2012) Review

You can basically expect two things when you go to see an American Pie film. One. An all-encompassing amount of sex. Two. An all-emcompassing amount of sex-related jokes. Basically these two things are what American Reunion gives us. Jim (Jason Biggs), Michelle (Alyson Hannigan), Stifler (Seann William Scott) and all the rest (I'm too lazy to list them) all return home for their high school reunion. Sure some of them have relationship problems and Jim's Dad makes everything really awkward. But that's about it.

As I'm sure you must be aware if you ever looked in the 5.99 bin at your local Wal-Mart there are approximately seven separate films in the franchise. This is only one of four to feature all these characters and the rest were released direct-to-dvd. The film itself elicited two separate reactions from me. One was a couple of instances of genuine laughter (one involved Jim's Dad [Eugene Levy]) and a whole lot of head-shaking. I prepared for that by sitting in the back of the theater so no one would see my annoying non-frat boy reaction. Unfortunately I was informed after the screening by one of the individuals in my party that he could see it several times.

There are really only two types of jokes in this film. There are the bad jokes that become good by one or two actions and the good jokes that go too far. I'm going to go ahead and reveal what the other joke was. You know the one that redeemed itself and then went too far? After being humiliated by a trio of high school punks, Stifler seeks his revenge. He ties their jet skis to his truck and silently sneaks to their icebox, opens it, and evacuates his bowels into it complete with nasty sound effect. He runs off and, true to formula of a collage party film, high school punk #1 opens it and sticks his hand into it to get a beer. The thing is that excrement jokes, in and of themselves, are not funny and the act of covering someone in said excrement is also not funny. Now, you may say, "Joe, why when you were so annoyed by the same effect in Joe Dirt and Fast Five do you give American Reunion a pass?" The answer is simple. While performing the act Jim asks Stifler, as any rational person would do, what he is doing. Stifler smiles and, silently, informs him what he is doing sitting on the icebox with his shorts around his ankles. That was what I laughed at. Then they had to ruin it by showing the contents on high school punk #1. From the looks of it methinks Stifler needs to eat more yogurt with live and active cultures.

The problem is that the franchise has been raucous and bordering offensive since the very beginning. With each passing film I fear the filmmakers must up the ante on how far they can push it. Why? This is what the audience expects. At this point the audience expects to see a man's penis behind a clear pot lid.

You know what I would have loved? If for once, just once, not everything works out for these people. Can't one of them get hit by a car and not walk away from it? Can't we end the film with them sitting on the sidewalk realizing their life sucks? Why does everybody have to get laid by the end?

★

 

 

Sleeping Beauty (2011) Review

Lucy (Emily Browning) is a 22 year-old university student who spends her time outside of school working a number of jobs. She works at a coffee shop, volunteers at a research lab and as a photocopy clerk. She answers an ad for women to make at least $250 an hour. Starting out as a lingerie-clad waitress she gains the favor of her employers and soon is promoted to the job of Sleeping Beauty. The job requires her to be drugged and sleep nude while paying customers do whatever they want with her body short of penetration.

This film has the emotional warmth of a walk in freezer. The depiction of human nature is not only completely miserable. It is unbearably, ridiculously miserable. There seems to be an attempt to replicate the films of Stanley Kubrick, particularly Eyes Wide Shut. That film was a masterpiece. Sleeping Beauty is a near abysmal implementation of faux eroticism and fails to be even remotely erotic.

Here's the thing. Much has been said about Browning's "visceral" performance and bravery for baring all onscreen. If nudity automatically translated to a good performance Elizabeth Berkley would have won an Academy Award for Showgirls. Did she? No. I should say that it's not entirely Browning's fault for an unmoving and uninvolving performance. The script, written by Julia Leigh (who also directed) gives her very little to do but walk around in the same miniskirt day after day and then take off her clothes and sleep. However Miss Browning cannot escape all the blame. I couldn't help but wonder where her natural accent goes from scene to scene and the finale features a scream that is neither engaging nor short enough to avoid laughing at.

The script does not present any background for Lucy and we learn nothing about her. We don't get to find out what she's studying or why. We don't get to discover how she makes the decision to take the job she does. Why can't we know of her dreams or fears? Is it the intention of Leigh to present her as a thoroughly unlikable, rude and unfeeling woman? I'm not sure but that was my reaction to it. I could care less about her friend who is either a drug addict or has a terminal illness or both.

The most annoying technique in the film is a slow fade to black. I counted nine. I'm sure that there were more but I lost count. When you have very little happening onscreen besides one character sitting down somewhere and you don't move the camera I suppose you have to put in some sort of attempt at style. Nice attempt. And before I stop writing this review like I should have stopped watching the film I want to say this. Julia Leigh needs to watch Creature from the Black Lagoon and see that no one wants to listen to bubbles for twenty minutes so the occasional piece of music would be nice. She needs to realize that silence is boring if not used appropriately and sparingly.

Zero Stars

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011) Review

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a film that lacks clarity and structure. A near constant jumping around of time periods and obscurity create a feeling of confusion and, I must confess, made me feel very lost. Remember the 1992 film Unforgiven? That was a film with a subpar script and a subpar story that featured fantastic performances. This film suffers from the same condition. Of course given the caliber of actors in this film (Gary Oldman, John Hurt, Colin Firth, Mark Strong) saying that they give great performances is like saying that chocolate is sweet.

I hate to do this but I can hardly remember a thing about the film and so much trouble following its plot that I am left with either not including a synopsis or copying it from another source. I pride myself on (almost) never having to do this but I want to be fair to it so I will have to take it from IMDB:

"In the early 1970s during the Cold War, the head of British Intelligence, Control (John Hurt), resigns after an operation in Budapest, Hungary goes badly wrong. It transpires that Control believed one of four senior figures in the service was in fact a Russian agent - a mole - and the Hungary operation was an attempt to identify which of them it was. George Smiley (Gary Oldman) had been forced into retirement by the departure of Control, but is asked by a senior government figure to investigate a story told to him by a rogue agent, Ricky Tarr (Tom Hardy), that there was a mole. Smiley considers that the failure of the Hungary operation and the continuing success of Operation Witchcraft (an apparent source of significant Soviet intelligence) confirms this, and takes up the task of finding him. Through the efforts of Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch), Smiley obtains information that eventually leads him to Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong), the agent at the heart of the Hungary fiasco. He is then able to put together the pieces of the puzzle, which leads him to the identity of the mole and the true intent of Operation Witchcraft."

A major issue is that too many characters are introduced in too rapid a succession. In one single scene we meet every single senior member of the organization and are hardly even able to follow what their names are, for one thing, and what they're purpose is for another. This is a cheap and lazy way to bring in all this information at once and I sat there in the theater scratching my head as I wondered where a character came from and if they had already introduced them and saying, "wait, didn't that guy get shot?"

Unmemorable and confusing Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy leaves much to be desired.

★1/2

 

 

A Separation (2011) Review

A film that can only be described as disappointing, A Separation begins uninterestingly and ends anti-climactically. As I have not seen the other contenders for Best Foreign Language Film I cannot comment on whether or not it deserved the Oscar. All I can do is report on what I didn't like.

Simin (Leila Hatami) wants to leave Iran to try and give her daughter Termah (Sarina Farhadi) a better life. However her husband Nader (Peyman Moadi) can't leave as he has to take care of his father with Alzheimer's. Simin leaves Nader as he refuses to go with her. Termah, in an attempt to bring her parents back together decides to live with her father. Nader hires a young woman named Razieh (Sareh Bayat) to be caregiver for his father. Nader does not know that Razieh is not only pregnant, but also working without her unstable husband's (Shahab Hosseini) permission. Coming home to find his father tied to the bed and Razieh nowhere around, Nader literally throws her out. Later he is charged with murder after she suffers a miscarriage supposedly caused by falling down the stairs.

The film ends with Termah being forced to choose between her parents. While Simin and Nader wait in a hallway for her decision the credits begin to roll. I am not against ambiguous endings when I care about the individuals involved. That's where my biggest issue with the film lies. It was immaterial to me if Simin and Nader get back together or if Razieh is telling the truth or what happens to Nader's father. The only characters I felt any sympathy or empathy for where Termah and Razieh's young daughter. They are unwillingly simply caught up in their issues of their parents. Beyond these two this is no such thing as a likable character.

The film is tedious and dull until we reach the catalyst, which even then is uninteresting. It doesn't so much forget the title of the film as much as it goes off on an irritating tangent from what could have been a film about how Simin and Nader deal with their conflict and the difficult decisions they must make. Perhaps someone who is fluent in the language being spoken would feel more of a connection with the characters.

There is one scene in the film that I enjoyed. It is the scene in which Nader confesses a truth to his daughter. For all you spoiler police don't worry I won't give too much away about it.

Like I said, I can't comment on whether or not it deserved the Oscar until the other films and I won't fault it for the typo-ridden subtitles. I'd rather see "threatening" misspelled several times than hear someone else dub the lines in English.

★★

The Artist (2011) Review

A fantastically phenomenal film that harkens back to the early days of cinema, The Artist tells the story of George Valentin (Jean Dujardin). He is arguably the most admired silent film star of 1927. During the post-premiere of his latest film The Russian Affair he runs into an aspiring young actress/dancer named Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo) which ends up being the springboard to her career. With the advent of the talkies their roles of success are reversed. Peppy becomes Kinograph's new biggest star while George, who rejects and resists the entire idea of talking pictures, fades into oblivion. Peppy attempts to help George as much as she can, even going so far as to convince her producer Al Zimmer (John Goodman) to let George read for a major role. Ultimately it would have to be up to George if he manages to be successful in an era where he doesn't believe audiences are interested in hearing him speak.

The film is the first (mostly) silent film to receive a large release in theaters in over thirty years. I love classic cinema and with that comes a love of silent films. The Artist is as close to extraordinary and perfect a film as it gets. Certainly one of the best films that I have seen in recent years and currently is a leading contender for a spot on my list of my all-time favorite films. There is a massive amount of affection for the films that inspired it and its love of those films is nothing short of brilliant. I must confess that I cannot praise it enough.

The thing about a silent film is that because there is no sound, short of the orchestra, and so your ears hunger for it. There isn't any dialogue actually heard until the last five minutes. In this scene Jean Dujardin says his only two words. Upon being asked by Al Zimmer if he and Peppy can do another take of a considerably complicated dance sequence he replies simply, "With pleasure." When he finally speaks I felt an enormous amount of elation that he does so. It's a wonderful scene where you can celebrate the emotional journey that this character goes through.

Throughout the entire film I got the feeling like I was a member of the audience in 1927. Perhaps it was the aspect ratio of 4:3 which was what was actually used for 35 mm films in the silent film era of cinema. Some films need the aspect ratio of 2:39:1 but The Artist is a film that is made better by the decision of a lower aspect ratio.

I've heard it said that the three most important things for an actor to use are their voice, face and hands. Silent film actors have a particularly larger challenge as they don't have the use of their voice and so they must walk a fine line with their facial expressions and hands. Jean Dujardin's performance fits comfortably with the likes of Lon Chaney, Charles Chaplin, Conrad Veidt and etc. so that you believe that he could have in fact been an actor during that time period. He hams it up if you will just enough without it being gimmicky.

As I said I cannot praise this film enough. It is extraordinary and so much more.

★★★★

 

 

Hugo (2011) Review

A masterful picture made with an exponential love of early and classic cinema. Its wonderful cinematography coupled with an interesting cast of characters in a "keep you guessing" story makes Hugo Martin Scorcese's best film since Goodfellas.

Set in Paris in 1931 Hugo tells the story of a resourceful and imaginative orphan who, upon the death of his father (Jude Law), begins a quest to uncover the secret of an automaton (a mechanical man intended to use a pen and write a message). Convinced the message is from his father Hugo goes at great lengths to repair it. He hides in a railway station and runs the clocks all while avoiding the ever watchful Chief Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) Hugo's journey brings him to the attention of a bitter toy-shop owner (Ben Kingsley) after he is caught trying to steal parts for the automaton. The toy-shop owner, Georges Méliès takes Hugo's notebook, which contains notes and drawings on the automaton, from him with the intent of burning it. Hugo follows Georges to his home where he meets Georges goddaughter Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz). Hugo and Isabelle follow all the possible clues which eventually lead them to a secret about Méliès.

Hugo is in many ways not a Scorcese film. There are no gangsters and the film is not Rated-R. It does however speak to Scorcese's adoration of film and his belief of protecting the films of the past. It is thoroughly upsetting that half of all films made before 1940 are gone. Hugo is his love letter to cinema and a well-made love letter at that.

Something that I was able to pick up on was the wonderful cinematography and digitally developed backgrounds. The backgrounds and shots of the Paris skyline look like glossier Matte paintings then we've seen previously. This film is all about escaping to the movies and the "not quite reality" look allows us to do just that. Your opinion may differ from mine about artificially created backgrounds but the work done in this film is a wonderful. Indeed the use of lighting and color in the film presents Hugo's relationship to each character. When Hugo is around Méliès there are a lot of blacks and greys and when he later runs into Isabelle the color turns to a hopeful gold. Whatever Hugo's particular feeling is at any given time is reflected in the film's look.

Distinguishably one of the better films of 2011 and most absolutely one of Martin Scorcese's best films he has ever made that presents a message that I unreservedly agree with. Movies and the experience of going to them are "what dreams are made of."

★★★★

Winnie the Pooh (2011) Review

Less childlike and more childish the latest installment in the franchise is an overall abysmal and highly disappointing turn for the characters and the stories created by A.A Milne and popularized in the United States by Walt Disney.

Attempting to return to the form presented by The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh the film is more a series of animated shorts compiled into one film. Among them are the story of Eeyore (voice of Bud Luckey) losing his tail and Winnie The Pooh, Tigger (both voiced by Jim Cummings), Owl (voiced by Craig Ferguson), Rabbit (voiced by Tom Kenny), Piglet (voiced by Travis Oates), Kanga (voiced by Kristen Anderson-Lopez) and Roo (voiced by Wyatt Dean Hall) all begin a contest to find a new one. While misinterpreting a note from Christopher Robin (Jack Boulter), Owl convinces everyone that he has been kidnapped by a horrible creature known as the Backson (Back soon) and Pooh attempts to find honey.

There are several songs in the film (written by Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez) and every single one of them fails to live up to the wonderful songs written by Robert and Richard Sherman for the previous shorts. There is a lack of charm and constant laziness in the new songs that causes them to be unmemorable. Repeating "honey" thirteen times does not make a good song and the complete shortage of talent in Zooey Deschanel is apparent in her singing of at least one of the songs.

One thing I have always loved about the characters that were originally created by A.A. Milne and illustrated by E.H Shepard was how honest and open they were with each other. They never tried to pull anything over on one another. In this film that is gone. The script, developed by no less than ten individuals, is so chock full of somewhat sinister actions (such as "toss in the pig") and lying that the individuals perpetually border on unlikeable. Perhaps I am lamenting for an era of animation and a style of storytelling that is gone or maybe I haven't given many programs the chances they deserve. Whatever the reason, I was severely disappointed in what I have been given by Disney in their attempts to update the characters to fit into a world of cynicism.

If I was to say anything good about the film it would be the voice work by Jim Cummings. He is the only member of the cast whose performances I didn't hate. His near pitch-perfect imitation of the late Sterling Holloway is so spot on that you would swear it was the same person. Of course he has had years to practice but he, nonetheless remains true to his characters unlike the rest of the cast.

★

The Grey (2012) Review

Man vs. nature. There has been several of these type of films as I am sure you are aware. The films present a major fear of humans. How does one survive when they are lost in the wilderness going up against the animals that live full-time in that wilderness? The Grey exploits that fear in a satisfying albeit predictable way.

John Ottway (Liam Neeson) is a member of an oil drilling team based in Alaska. His job is to kill wolves that surround and threaten the team. On his last day he writes a letter to his wife and walks out into the woods to commit suicide. However while kneeling in the snow with his rifle in his mouth he hears a wolf howl which stops him. Upon completion of the job the team and Ottway board a plane headed for home. The plane is unable to withstand the power of a blizzard and crashes in a barren wasteland killing all but Ottway and seven of the oil-drillers. Ottway immediately assumes control of the group whose initial plan is to stay with the destroyed remnants of the plane but upon realizing they are in a wolf pack's territory (especially after one member is torn apart by the wolves in the middle of the night) the team decides that it is better to walk south in the hope of being rescued or finding civilization. The wolves continue to hunt the men on their journey and, as you would expect, one by one the men are killed by the cold, wolves, trees etc.

The film unfortunately is far too predictable at times to really feel as original as I wanted it to feel. I was literally able to sit in the theater and know who would be killed next and/or how they would be killed and so the film follows a formula and plays it safe. It doesn't shock or frighten nearly as much as it should when one factors in the harsh environment the fortunately fully fleshed out characters are in.

Previously I mentioned the film's satisfying use of the fear the characters have. It might seem as though I am contradicting myself but the truth is that half the film is predictable while the other half is a lean forward in your seat type of film. The scenes in which the characters are surrounded by the wolves or face to face with them are among some of the most frightening and intense scenes in the film. Dracula's opinion of their musical prowess comes to mind in several scenes. I only wish the filmmakers had focused more on the eyes of the wolves which are the feature that an audience relates to most in an animal onscreen. There are issues with the CGI animation of the wolves but to be fair Hollywood has always had issues with the animation of wolves and indeed the animation of creatures with fur. The wolves lack weight when running or attacking and their size in the film is excessive and visibly surpasses the average wolf size while some of their hunting behavior is inaccurate.

The trivia section of imdb for the film mentions that the atrocious Bradley Cooper was initially cast in Liam Neeson's role and all I can be is thankful for the change because Neeson's performance is one his better. As my friend remarked after the film's credits, "when I grow up I want to be Liam Neeson."

An interesting take for the film's cinematography is to create it in a coherent style with the film's title. There is a lot of attention obviously given to the color palette and style of the shots (although I wish there weren't so many establishing shots of the snow covered mountains). Everything is either gray, white or black which creates a feeling of dreariness to the film.

An overall fear-provoking and intense picture that walks a balance and unfortunately sometimes falls off into predictable and pointlessness.

★★★

 

 

 

Anonymous (2011) Review

Anonymous is about what you'd expect. Ludicrous hypotheticals abound in this film directed by Roland Emmerich, who you might remember directed the equally ludicrous though far worse 10,000 B.C. The film's tagline reads "What If Shakespeare Was a Fraud?" which basically sums up what the film is about. It subscribes to the Oxford theory and suggests that the plays were written by the 17th Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans). Due to his status as an important individual in society and his relationship with William Cecil (David Thewlis) and Queen Elizabeth I (Vanessa Redgrave and Joely Richardson) he cannot take credit for the plays and sonnets so he decides to make Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto) put his name to them and have them performed. Who should happen to take credit from Jonson but the film's biggest buffoon William Shakespeare, played entertainingly by Rafe Spall. The next hour and a half is as slow and tedious as Shakespeare can be to read.

As I said the film is filled with absurdity. It does not follow a chronological story but instead tries a rather transparent tactic of confusing the audience by fastforwarding and backflashing to mask it's absurdity and historical inaccuracies (such as Young Elizabeth having near constant relations with several men and birthing several bastards) and anachronisms (for example Macbeth is seen being performed during Elizabeth I's reign even though it was performed during the reign of King James. There is also a scene where the Globe burns down nearly ten years before it actually burned down).

Despite the ridiculousness of the film there are several things of merit. The performances by Ifans, Redgrave and Edward Hogg (who is particularly creepy as Robert Cecil) are all of a fairly high quality but it is David Thewlis who shines in his role and gives quite possibly the best performance of his career thus far. The character of William Cecil goes through, physically speaking, the most change transforming from young to old to dying but a great makeup is only going to be able to carry an actor so far. Without the subtleties that Thewlis gives in his role it would simply be a great makeup wasted.


Besides the performances the film is actually good from a technical standpoint. When I say technical I am referring to the costumes, cinematography, makeup, art direction etc. I guarantee that there will be some Academy Award nominations for those moments

I know the theories and arguments about who wrote Shakespeare is quite polarized and I admit I am not an expert on Shakespeare. Oxfordians think that the Stratfordians are idiots and vice versa. I know a lot of you Shakespearean scholars and students will think me an idiot because I refuse to "pick a side" but the truth, my friends, is that at the end of the day it doesn't matter who wrote Hamlet, Henry V, Sonnet #81, Macbeth, A Midsummer Night's Dream, King Lear or Romeo & Juliet. They all were written by someone and exist for us to analyze, praise, scrutinize, be bored by or just plain enjoy.

★★★

Beginners (2010) Review

Rarely do you have a film like Beginners. It is a film that works on mostly every level and is so wonderfully simple in its complexity. Graphic designer Oliver (Ewan McGregor) meets a free-spirited actress named Anna (Mélanie Laurent) after his father, Hal (Christopher Plummer) has passed away. As Oliver gets to know Anna he realizes that he is very much inexperienced in the prospect of a long-lasting romantic relationship. Oliver's memories of his father, who, following the death of his wife of 45 years came out of the closet to lead a full, energized and wonderful life and possibly encourage Oliver to find a woman and do the same and find true happiness. Oliver ends up taking in Hal's dog, named Arthur who can understand up to 150 words but does not talk except in subtitles. It is unclear as to whether the words at the bottom of the screen are what the dog is thinking or just what Oliver decides the dog would say if he could. One thing does remain clear and that's the fact that Arthur is the only character in the film that truly has a good bead on his life and is able to be happy with no effort at all.

The film moves from time period to time period with surprising finesse and fluidity. All too often a filmmaker attempts to do this in a way that is fresh and doesn't annoy the audience and fails in their attempt. Writer/director Mike Mills succeeds by presenting all the flashbacks as Oliver's memories. This allows the audience to feel comfortable with the seemingly random jumping around because the human mind recalls memories at random. The script really doesn't feel chaotic as one would expect or would easily happen. Oliver's narration in the film provides the set up by saying, "this is 2003. This is nature and the stars and the president and movies. This is what happy looks like in 1955. This was smoking etc."

The three leads (McGregor, Laurent and Plummer) all deliver great performances in the film with special mention going to the perfection of Christopher Plummer in his now Oscar-nominated role. As Hal he is a cheerful and simple man that is surprisingly transparent. He does not overplay the stereotypical gay man but instead plays it as a man who is finally being true to what he is. This makes Plummer's performance one of his most human performances. I do admit that although I have only seen her in one other film (Inglorious Basterds) I predict and expect great things to come from Laurent throughout her career in the US. I guarantee that she will bring many other great performances in the future.

One of the things that bothered me the whole film though was the musical score. Don't get your dander up. I do not say that I necessarily disliked the score as much as it's placement in the film. It feels out of place in this film. It is almost as though composer Roger Neill wrote the music for another film and decided to put it to use here. Although pleasant to listen to by itself it simply does not fit here. Still the film is so wonderfully made on every other level so I suppose in the grand scheme of things the issues I have with the music are a minor inconvenience.

★★★1/2

Ten Most Hated of 2011

I love doing this list. Revenge is such a sweet, sweet thing

10. Winnie the Pooh

Not very long ago the characters were always honest with each other and never tried to put anything over on each other. Here they have become deceitful and cynical to the point of unlikable.

9. The Green Lantern

Ludicrous looking visual effects and the uselessness of Ryan Reynolds drop the hopefulness of this film to abysmally stupid

8. The Roommate

A dull and unnecessary remake of an interesting, although admittedly, flawed film.

7. Scream 4

Far too predictable to be scary

6. Priest

This film is a murky, unimaginable mess with vampires that seem to be covered in sausage casing

5. Conan the Barbarian

There was no reason to make such a pointless film. 90 minutes of Conan stabbing people and the ground

4. Zookeeper

Animals break their silence and the only thing they can think of is to talk to Kevin James. Why, you ask? Who cares?

3. Your Highness

An offensive, unfunny gag "comedy" which features Natalie Portman following up an Oscar win with a ridiculous bad performance.

2. Sucker Punch

A goofy and failed attempt to appeal to the twenty-something male members of the audience by having pretty girls back-flip in skimpy outfits in slow motion.

1. The Hangover Part II

Don't tell me you're surprised

Top Ten Favorites of 2011

It's now time for me to put together a list of my actual favorite movies that I saw in 2011. I admit that I haven't seen every film released, and there are many I still want to see, so this isn't so much a list of what could be considered the "best". This is a list of the films I was lucky enough to see that I saw as being above average quality.

10. Super 8

An enjoyable film made by lovers of science-fiction films for lovers of those same films.

9. Rango

Okay, so I might have not liked the flat humor in the film but its animation is quite gorgeous so it gets a spot.

8. The Adjustment Bureau

A great, if underused, performance by Terrence Stamp brought what could have been an unmemorable film to a higher level

7. Our Idiot Brother

A funny film that lacks any unpleasant cynicism

6. Paul

While watching it I realized that not only do I know people like the two main characters, I am people like the two main characters

5: 50/50

Humor in the light of excessive drama can be hard to pull off but this film manages to do so tastefully.

4: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Excellent special effects and an effective, mesmerizing performance by Andy Serkis recommend this film

3: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

No one is more surprised than myself that, being overall unimpressed by the franchise, I am putting this on my list

2: The Muppets

Didn't I say that this film would have a spot?

1: Rio

A wonderfully colorful, cheerful film that even several months since its release still is enjoyable to watch

Casablanca (1942) Review

To put it as succinctly as I can, Casablanca is one of the greatest American films that have ever been made and is, in my estimation, second only to Gone with the Wind.

In World War II Casablanca, Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart), self-exiled American and former freedom fighter, runs the most popular nightspot in town (everyone comes to Rick's). The cynical Rick comes into the possession of two valuable letters of transit, taken from two murdered German couriers by Signor Ugarte (Peter Lorre). When Nazi Major Strasser (Conrad Veidt) arrives in Casablanca, the obsequious Captain Renault (Claude Rains) does what he can to please him, including hindering underground rebellion leader Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid) from escaping to America. Much to Rick's frustration and disbelief, Lazslo arrives with Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman), Rick's one time love, who ran out on him in Paris years earlier.

The screenplay (written by Julius J. Epstein, Philip G. Epstein and Howard Koch) is possibly the best that has been written with Claude Rains getting the majority of the great lines (for example, "I like to think that you killed a man. It's the romantic in me." and "round up the usual suspects"). The lines have become so popular that when AFI did a list of the top 100 greatest movie quotes, Casablanca appeared on that list more (a total of six times) than any other film.

One thing you can look closely at is the cinematography. The framing of Ilsa deserves particular mention. By filming Bergman from largely the left side with catch lights, to lighten her eyes, Arthur Edeson manages to enhance the look of ineffable sadness that Bergman conveys in every scene she is in. It should come as no surprise that the performances in the film are pure perfection. Perhaps the fact that the characters are so relatable is why people attach themselves to Casablanca. Somehow, Bogart manages to have great chemistry with every other actor he appears with and not surprisingly Ingrid Bergman is perfect in this film. When wasn't she?

I'd love to give the film a four-star rating. However, I think that the film actually surpasses what my current rating system allows so I won't be assigning a star rating. This is not, I repeat, not a bad thing.

No Star Rating

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993) Review

This film, created in the style of Batman: The Animated Series, is one of the best superhero/comic book films to ever be made. It can even be said to rival or in some cases, and I'm talking to you Schumacher, far surpass the live-action films that have been made.

During a conference of crime bosses held in a Gotham City skyscraper, gangster Chuckie Sol (Dick Miller) is killed by a mysterious cloaked figure shortly after Batman (Kevin Conroy) bursts in on the meeting. Batman is blamed for the death. Councilman Arthur Reeves (Hart Bochner) tells the media that Batman is an irresponsible menace, then attends a party at the mansion of billionaire Bruce Wayne, Batman's alter ego. Reeves jokingly taunts Bruce for having allowed an old girlfriend, Andrea Beaumont (Dana Delany), to get away. In a flashback to Bruce's college days, we see him meet Andrea in a cemetery while visiting his parents' grave. Bruce has vowed to avenge his parents' murder by dedicating his life to fighting crime. He dons a mask and black ninja-styled outfit and foils an armored car robbery, but is discouraged that the criminals do not fear him. Around the same time, he begins a romance with Andrea. Eventually, Bruce decides to quit his plan on becoming a crime-fighter and proposes marriage to Andrea. However, Andrea mysteriously leaves Gotham with her father, ending her engagement to Bruce in a Dear John letter. Believing that he has lost his only chance of having a normal life, Bruce officially dons the cape and cowl and the moniker of Batman. In the present, the killer finds and kills another gangster, Buzz Bronski (John P. Ryan). Batman discovers evidence linking Andrea's father with a number of organized crime figures. The killer later targets Salvatore Valestra (Abe Vigoda), the mob boss for whom both Sol and Bronski once worked as enforcers, but is beaten to the punch by the Joker (Mark Hamill), whom Valestra had foolishly consulted for help; Batman is blamed again and has a close call with the police after a brief confrontation with the killer. Rescuing Batman in her car, Andrea explains that she and her father had been hiding in Europe, from the Valestra mob, to whom he owed a lot of money. Carl Beaumont (Stacey Keach) eventually repaid them, but that did not satisfy them. Batman believes that Andrea's father may be the killer vigilante

Some might think me a bit biased. Batman is my favorite comic book character. I am biased in the sense that I am likely to be far more critical of adaptations of Batman than I am with Superman or The Green Lantern just to name a couple. It's easy to screw up the source material however this film manages, with its dark backgrounds and gothic layout, to do the material justice while still being able to hold you in what ends up being quite a tragic and powerful film. The simplest and most central theme in the film is loss. This can be a difficult theme to pull off without feeling superficial or heavy-handed. It's a very fine line and the filmmakers walk that line beautifully and have perfect balance.

The voice-acting in the film is as close to perfect as is to be expected in I grew up watching the Batman cartoon every day after school and hearing Kevin Conroy's voice alongside the drawings of Batman. To me, and a lot of others, there is no other Batman besides him. He takes Batman to dark, deep and powerful place. By contrast his work as Bruce shows the idea of a character who wants to have happiness but can't feel it so he puts on a phony façade. Dana Delany in particular brings a reality to Andrea that is at times heartbreaking. The good Batman films and television episodes embrace the tragedy of its characters. That's what sets Batman apart from other comic book characters. Pathos with a small underpinning of hope.

★★★1/2

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2003) Review

I'm sure most of you had to have seen this coming. So the question we have to ask ourselves today is, why am I reviewing this so long after I first hated it? Everyone else loved it. I'm writing this review to try to convince those people that it is a stupid film targeted at stupid moviegoers. You see, the point is not to avoid stupid movies but we must avoid being stupid audience members. I am all for goofy, campy humor but that's only when it is done well. George of the Jungle and Wayne's World are examples of silliness at its best. Those films are whimsical and damned funny. The film I am reviewing today is neither whimsical nor funny. Deal with it.

Anchorman is set during the 1970s and stars Will Ferrell as Ron Burgundy, San Diego's top-rated news anchorman. Burgundy is outwardly willing to adjust to the idea of females in the workplace although he doesn't want his job challenged. Due to that it's no surprise that when an aspiring female anchor named Veronica (Christina Applegate) shows up she is not the studio's most welcome addition. After Veronica pays her dues covering so-called female-oriented fluff pieces (think cat fashion shows and cooking segments), the ambitious Veronica sets her eyes on the news desk; more specifically, on Ron's seat behind it. Not unpredictably, Ron does not take this intrusion lightly and so the two rivals engage in a battle of the sexes for a chair.

Here's a summary of every joke in the movie: Not funny. You know when you tell someone to shut up and all they say is, "You shut up." Those kind of childish insults plague the movie. It's essentially an hour and a half of back and forth insults and dialogue designed for stupid characters that doesn't really go anywhere. Lines like, "You smell like a blueberry" and "Where'd you get your clothes? The toilet store?" leave me wondering, "is that meant to be funny?" The only answer I can come up with is that the shooting script had to be the first draft. The attempts at satirizing sexist workplaces and news stations in the 1970's are so desperate for laughs that it's almost tragic.

IMDB lists the runtime of the film as ninety-four minutes. You know what I did like about this movie? That it wasn't ninety-five.

½ ★

 

The Muppets (2011) Review

The Muppets are a part of my childhood. They've been around so long that they span more than just one generation. However in recent years they have become less relevant than they were prior to the CGI-ridden 3D slop that tends to inhabit theaters. The last theatrical Muppet film, the overall disappointing Muppets From Space, was twelve years ago. Now with The Muppets well, the Muppets are back to where they fit best in a world of ridiculous jokes, off the wall situations and bears telling bad puns.

Walter (performed by Peter Linz) is a puppet who loves The Muppet Show and dreams of nothing more than meeting the characters. He and his human brother Gary (Jason Segal) travel with Gary's girlfriend, Mary (Amy Adams) to Los Angeles to visit the Muppet Studios. They get there and find it in serious need of repair. Apparently even though Beauregard has been sweeping for X years the place is a mess. Enter our villain. Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) is an oil man who knows that there is oil beneath the studio. He plans to own the studio and theater so he can destroy them and drill. Walter learns of this and he, Gary and Mary decide to reunite the Muppets to put on one last show in order to save their theater.

There are so many great moments in The Muppets that I can't possibly list them all but among my personal favorites are how Rowlf ended up being convinced to be reunited, Animal in anger management and the entire Muppet Show cast singing a new version of "Rainbow Connection". Writer and co-star Jason Segal is a self-professed Muppet fanatic and so The Muppets plays like a love letter to the characters and their brand of humor. That's what allows the film to be so great. The songs are an additional boost to the franchise but then again Muppet songs have always been wonderful.

Where would any review of a Muppet movie be without mentioning the brilliance of the Muppeteers. Steve Whitmire (Kermit, Beaker, Statler, Rizzo, The Newsman, Link Hogthrob), Dave Goelz (Gonzo, Dr. Bunsen Honeydew, Zoot, Beauregard, Waldorf, Kermoot) and Eric Jacobson (Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, Sam Eagle, Marvin Suggs, Animal) are all the top performers in the film. It's not easy to push a performance out through your hand and make the audience believe that what they are seeing are real, living, breathing things even though I know the performers don't see them that way.

To give you an idea of how wonderful the film was, I have only been to four films that were met with applause at the end. This is the fourth film.

I must set aside a spot on "My Ten Favorite Films of 2011" list. Don't know where yet but I can promise it will be on there.

★★★★

Puss In Boots (2011) Review

Spin-off films (or anything spin-off) are usually not good. I had concerns for this film since it was first announced as a direct-to-dvd several years ago. My concern was more that Puss might not be a strong enough character to carry an entire film without Eddie Murphy or Mike Myers.

Set during what I assume is the same time period of the first Shrek film. Okay, maybe that's too much to assume. It all happens before Puss tells Shrek and Donkey to fear him if they dare. In this film Puss (Antonio Banderas) is still a bandit. He hears talk of the legend of the gold-laying goose. Attempting to steal magic beans from Jack and Jill (yep those ones that fell down the hill), Puss meets another feisty female cat named Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek) and as a result is reunited with his "brother" Humpty Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis). They travel into the sky and steal the goose and Puss saves the day.

Some of the funniest moments in the film are where we see Puss act like a cat. Lapping up a shot glass of milk or chasing a small ball of light were two of my favorites. The animation itself is beautiful in particular when Mr. In Boots and Ms. Softpaws have a dance fight. There are so many wonderful little spaghetti western homages in the film but I got the feeling that, in a theater of around forty people, I was only one of two-ish who got those. I wish I could help those people learn more.

The majority of my criticism for the film lies with the character of Humpty Dumpty. Well, maybe not so much with the character but rather with Galifianikis. His take on the character is to do what all the king's horses and all the king's men did with the character. Nothing. The film itself is lacking during his far too often screen time. That's right Dreamworks. Dumpty fell off the wall and brought the film down.

★★★

Raven Reviews’ Rating System

This is for the voracious readers of my blog and even the casual observer (read it more). You may have noticed that at the end of every review I list the number of stars I give a film. Why do I do this and what does each star mean? Well, officially I do the star system because I hate assigning a grade (A, B, F, C-) for a movie. Now what are my criteria?

Generally, if I give a film four stars (such as Rio, Kill Bill Vol. 1) it means that I have no negative criticism for it or, if I do have negative criticism it is so minimal that it doesn't detract from my love of the rest of the film. On the flip side if I give a film zero stars (The Hottie and The Nottie, Freddy Got Fingered, Friday the 13^th: The Final Chapter) it means I have nothing but criticism for it. Either I find the subject matter approached in deplorable manner or just hate the film. Rarely do I hate a film enough to warrant zero stars and even more rare is a "No Star Rating". My reasons for this are more often because I just couldn't make it through the whole film (remember when I reviewed Hangover Part II?) or the star system is unsuited for something as was the case for The Gingerdead Man. That hardly was a movie at all so I guess it doesn't matter if it was worth zero stars or I just wanted to not assign a rating. This is important: A zero stars is not the same thing as a no star rating.

This is about how it breaks down:



Zero Stars

This means I hated everything about the movie

½ ★

This means I only found a ridiculous redeeming quality like the font used for the credits

★

This means that there is something that really turns me off to the rest of it (case in point, the gloomy and gray animation in Once Upon A Forest)

★1/2

Overall not really watchable but features at least one or two things I did like.

★★

Movies I probably would only watch again if I was really bored.

★★1/2

This means that only one or two things are of special significance and near perfect (Like Javier Bardem's performance in Biutiful) but are surrounded by basic slop (like everything else in Biutiful)

★★★

This one is kind of tough to explain. The ratio is rather reversed from two and a half stars

★★★1/2

Sometimes it is something seemingly small that drops a four star film to this rating like the last shot in Thelma and Louise.

★★★★

Every once in a while I am pleasantly surprised and my rating reflects that (Our Idiot Brother). Usually this is reserved for films that are, just like Mary Poppins, practically perfect in every way.



Above all I must warn that the purpose of the stars should not be taken out of context of the review itself. You can't compare two completely different reviews and say that only the stars matter.

This post is dedicated by My Idiot Father who for whatever reason doesn't get my system.

Kill Bill Vol. 2 (2004)

The film could be judged to be one of the best sequels in recent years but it's really not a sequel anyway. So I won't say that. I don't believe it be quite the masterpiece that the Kill Bill: Vol. 1 is but it is a great film nonetheless.

Vol. 2 picks up almost exactly where Vol. 1 left off. The Bride (Uma Thurman), having killed O-Ren Ishii and Vernita Greene has only three more people to take revenge on. They are Bill's younger brother Budd (Michael Madsen), his latest flame Elle (Daryl Hannah) and Bill himself (David Carradine).

Like I said in my review for Vol. 1, Quentin Tarantino is a master at genres. This film is more spaghetti western than kung fu but there is nothing wrong with that. Tarantino's dialogue has never been better than in the final act of the film. The last twenty minutes or so feature some of the best read/written dialogue I've seen in a film. David Carradine has a fifteen minute monologue where he explains his position and why he did what he did to The Bride. Instead of simply saying, "You made me feel bad" he goes into rather fluid analogy connecting Superman to the life of an assassin.

We don't get an extended fight between the Bride and Bill like we did with O-Ren in the first film. Frankly I didn't need it. His death in the film (I'm not responsible for that spoiler since it's in the title) is handled tragically and is incredibly sad which one would not expect given the build-up to the last twenty minutes. David Carradine showcases some great character work in this film and I would have loved it if he recieved an Oscar nomination (Golden Globes suck) for his work.

Now I feel I must explain the reason for not giving the film four stars like I did with Kill Bill: Vol 1. Admittedly it's because I just liked the first more. Not because this one isn't as good but since I know I enjoyed the first more I cannot in good conscience give them both the same rating. I'm almost half-tempted to use three stars and three quarters of a star for it but alas I fear change.

★★★1/2

Paranormal Activity 2 (2010) Review

This movie isn't so much a sequel (like the title would suggest) as a prequel. It's an inferior film that, considering how much I liked the first Paranormal Activity, was a major disappointment.
Daniel Rey (Brian Boland) and his wife Kristi (Sprague Grayden) have just brought home their infant son, Hunter. They live in a large house with Daniel's daughter Ali (Molly Ephraim), their nanny Martine (Vivis Colombetti) and their German Shephard Abby. As it turns out Kristi is the sister of Kathie who you might remember as the victim of a haunting in the first film. Both Kathie and her boyfriend Micah make several appearences in the film. One night the Reys return home to find their entire house vandalized. Furniture is thrown across the floor, the television is smashed etc. Assuming they are the victims of a break-in (interestingly there was nothing stolen and no signs of forced entry) the Reys set up video survellience cameras around their house. As the cameras record strange things happening night after night Ali, after a extensive amount of research on the internet, assumes that their is a demonic entity in the house that is after Hunter. Bet you wouldn't have been able to guess that she's right.

Like I said this was a major disappointment. Basically this how almost all the events transpire. Nothing happens, nothing happens, loud bang, nothing happens, nothing happens, louder bang, nothing happens, things move around by themselves, nothing happens, demon attacks and it's over. The subtleties and illusions utilized so well in the first film have, for some strange reason, been replaced by cheap jump scares. For those who are unfamiliar with jump scares allow me to elaborate. Often there will be silence which is suddenly interrupted by a loud noise or fast action with a sharp musical chord. If you have ever been sitting in a room by yourself with your attention on something interesting and someone comes in to the room and causes your shoulders to leap up suddenly in brief terror. Well, you have been jump scared.

A major issue is the camera angles which are all too far away or too fuzzy to really see the characters faces when they are scared. As a side effect of that we are not scared because we cannot empathize with them. The characters are like faceless mannequins so who cares about their plight? I certainly don't and I really don't think you will either.

★

Boondock Saints (1999) Review

Nearly everyone I've spoken to about this film says things such as "It's incredible" and "You'll love it!" and the like. What I got upon viewing is a film that I didn't love nor hate, in the strictest sense.

Fraternal twins Connor and Murphy Mcmanus (Sean Patrick Flannery, Norman Reedus) are two Irish-born Catholics who live and work in Boston. After they kill two Russian thugs in self-defense and being released as heroes they decide that it is their mission from God to rid the world of evil men. Risking their lives for their beliefs of Veritas (truth) and Aequitas (justice), the Boondock Saints are hyped by the public, for they are doing good, which only few dare to admit. Even FBI agent Paul Smecker (Willem Dafoe), who is assigned to follow their trail of bloodshed, admits that what Connor and Murphy are doing is what he has always wanted to happen. The boys are joined by their friend and former mob "package boy" David "The Funnyman" Della Rocco (David Della Rocco) as they slowly work their way through the underworld killing men they judge to be evil. No vigilante story can be complete without the bad guys hiring a perfect killer who's only known in the film as Il Duce (Billy Connolly).

Possibly the only good things in the film are the strong performances by Dafoe and Connolly who both manage to make the most of their limited screen time. By contrast Flannery and Reedus stay oddly wooden in their readings.

The film itself seems more interested in finding interesting or original ways to stage the executions of the villains instead of presenting the internal choices made by the main characters to choose vigilantism. Sloppy editing of action sequences leave me wanting more. I've been told that the original cut received an NC-17 rating after the Columbine massacre but the chaotic editing to gain an R makes you realize that all the other aspects of the film are just as poor. That feeling runs from the direction by Troy Duffy to the Tarantino-wannabe dialogue (also by Duffy) to the hammed up role of Rocco. All the way up until we get to the miscasting of Ron Jeremy as a mafia underboss.

Who knows? Maybe I really did hate it.

★1/2

La Belle et la Bête (1946) Review

One of the best French films in existence, La Belle et la Bête (Beauty and the Beast), begins in the home of a half-ruined merchant (Marcel André). The merchant, whose name is never mentioned, has four grown children. Three daughters and a son named Ludovic (Michel Auclair). His first two daughters, Adélaïde (Nane Germon) and Félicie (Mila Parély), are superficial, selfish and spoiled. They exploit the third daughter, Belle (Josette Day) as a servant and squander every cent their father makes on themselves so that they can be beautiful and sophisticated. Ludovic despises both Adélaïde and Félicie but is highly protective of Belle, particularly from the advances of his scoundrel friend Avenant (Jean Marais). One day the merchant leaves on a business trip. Before he goes he asks each of his daughters what he can bring them as a present. Adélaïde and Félicie naturally ask for lavish gifts while Belle asks for only a single rose. On his way home the merchant gets lost in the forest. He comes across a castle and enters to seek accommodations. No one appears to own the castle and the merchant sleeps well. The next morning the merchant sees a rose bush and, remembering his promise to Belle, he picks a single rose.

Out of the shadows steps the Beast (also played by Jean Marais) who demands retribution for the loss of his precious rose after he allowed the merchant to stay in his home. The merchant begs to see his family one last time and the Beast gives him a choice. Either he must return and stay in the Beast's castle forever or one of his daughters must take his place. As she feels she is the cause of her father's predicament, Belle sacrifices herself to the Beast. Upon arriving at the castle, Belle finds that the Beast, whose grotesqueness she cannot deny, does not want to kill her, but wants to marry her and lavish her with riches. He does not force her, but he will ask her every night to marry him, these times the only ones when he will appear to her. She vows never to say yes. As Belle resigns herself to her mortal fate and looks deeper into the Beast - whose grotesque exterior masks a kind but tortured soul her thoughts begin to change. Meanwhile, Belle's family, who learn of her situation, have their own thoughts of what to do, some working toward what they believe is Belle's best welfare, and others working toward their own benefit.

The original story by Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont is essentially a story about two characters having dinner. Writer/Director Jean Cocteau manages to flesh out something with less than six-thousand words into a film of near perfection. It's a picture that does not age. Every time I watch the film I see something new. Purely poetic, fantastical and translucent. The film is not hindered by my inability to speak French. The Beast, in all his incarnations, is one of the most tragic heroes in literature. Jean Marais and Jean Cocteau give him an elegance that is absolutely mesmerizing. His appearance has an odd similarity to animal-human creatures from the Universal legacy. Cocteau decides to play up the Beast's eyes so that we are not only sympathetic to his plight but also empathetic. Jean Marais plays a total of three roles in the film but it is his interpretation of The Beast that is his best role and has only been matched by Robby Benson's.

★★★★

Keeper of the Flame (1942) Review

1942-1946 was an irregular time in Hollywood. The US was engulfed by World War II and Hollywood was forced to support the war effort by creating more or less propaganda pictures. Perhaps the audiences wanted a way to escape the realities of the war so the Three Little Pigs took on Adolf Wolf in the Tex Avery short Wolf Blitz and Batman was fighting to stop a Japanese criminal mastermind in the cliffhanger series. Oddly enough this era also produced some of the best films ever made. Keeper of the Flame is no exception.

As the second of nine films that Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy made together Keeper of the Flame begins with a car racing down a storm-trodden road. The car, driven by someone we don't see, careens of a broken bridge and crashes into a ravine. The killed driver we learn is Robert Forrest. He's somewhat of a hero among the American people. He spends the majority of his time speaking out against fascism in Germany and giving hope through rousing speeches and essays. The entire country mourns his death like they would a president. Newspaperman Steven O'Malley (Tracy) is motivated to write a biography on Forrest. First though he must get through to Forrest's widow Christine (Hepburn) who has become a recluse following her husband's death. As Steven probes the story of Robert's life, with the help of a lead secretary named Clive Kerndon (Richard Whorf), he finds that not all about Robert was as it seemed and his death may have not been an accident.

You won't ever see me say that Katharine Hepburn gives a bad performance because, quite frankly, one does not exist. Her role as Christine is one of her best. We don't see Christine until nearly a quarter into the film so we wonder who she is or what she feels. There's no dialogue when she first appears. A lesser actress would have required a long speech to convey what Hepburn does in very few facial expressions. Spencer Tracy is equally brilliant in the film and has a remarkable ability to create a fully realized character based on Donald Ogden Stewart's screenplay.

The story is one of the best mysteries that Hollywood has put out. Until the last ten minutes we wonder what the truth is. We know that there is a secret that Christine and Clive are keeping from Steven but are not sure what and we naturally attempt to come to our own conclusions. Was he having an affair? Where was he going when he crashed his car? The whole film has a wonderful atmosphere surrounding it. It's a film that is horribly overlooked by so many people today.

★★★★

50/50 (2011) Review

Every few years Hollywood churns out a film about terminal illness. Most of all of them have one or more moments in the film where they nudge the audience saying, "Are you feeling emotional yet?" instead of hoping you do. Terms of Endearment, Beaches and the like are all guilty of this severe turn-off. 50/50 is not. What you get is a film that doesn't focus on the dark sides of an ailment. It's not an overly dramatic film nor is it an overly funny sitcom.

Adam Schwartz (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is by all accounts a good guy. He's 27 years old, has a beautiful artist girlfriend named Rachael (Bryce Dallas Howard) and works as a writer of radio programs in Seattle with his best friend Kyle (Seth Rogen) who messes up Adam's life in more ways than one. Suffering from back pain Adam decides to get checked out. It turns out he has a rare form of spinal cancer which he has a fifty-fifty chance of surviving before Metastasis (after that his chances are less than ten percent). Left with no other options Adam begins chemotherapy and starts seeing a 26-year-old medical student/therapist named Katherine (Anna Kendrick). With the support of Katherine, Kyle and his overprotective mother (Angelica Huston), Adam manages to come to terms with his illness and starts to appreciate his life more, especially the things he previously took for granted.

Gordon-Levitt gives a particularly transparent performance that runs a great, wide range of emotions. At some points he is laughing with two other chemo patients and at other times silently contemplating his current situation and, in one particularly perfect scene, screaming at the top of his lungs and punching a dashboard. Here Rogen is quite good as well but is somewhat type cast into his role. I'd love to see him do a serious drama. Anna Kendrick's performance is a bit underdone but it's possible that she isn't given much to do with her role besides being the therapist.

It's not a "laugh-out loud" film but is actually quite dramatic with a lot of humorous dialogue, mostly from Rogen, thrown in. I get the feeling that the film was terribly marketed for what it really is. Don't misunderstand that. I'm not saying it isn't funny. It did have me laughing enough to be satisfied but, much like Woman of the Year, I see it as tragic above funny.

Good performances and (thankfully) few dirty jokes help to flesh out a poorly marketed film.

★★★1/2

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!