In the Valley of Elah

2.5/4 stars

In the Valley of Elah is a movie that tries to be a mystery, a tragedy and a political statement. As a mystery it is dense and unpredictable (if somewhat dry), as a tragedy it is well acted and strikingly composed. However, the film's political agenda derails its success in other areas.

Tommy Lee Jones is the protagonist, a father who tries to solve his son's murder even as he grieves. His quiet intensity and constrained emotion are the film's greatest asset, and a reminder of Jones' incredible talent. He plays a character struggling with many emotions; anger, guilt, courage and determination, and he balances them all with great restraint. Charlize Theron gives a well drawn performance as the ambivalent police detective who helps him. The supporting cast includes numerous talented actors and strikes the right note as well, even if this often only requires them to be somber.

Whether or not they agree with the film's political sentiments (a condemnation of war in general and the Iraq war in particular), viewers will find that they rob the film's conclusion of the emotional payoff we should be feeling. Instead of playing as ingenious plot twist, the mystery's solution seems like an arbitrary deux es machina, designed to take us by surprise in the most tragic way possible. The use of a flashback at the end to twist the knife undermines the spare and direct storytelling style that the movie has established, and its powerful final image seems an unearned contrivance. Paul Haggis, while a highly talented writer and director, also has a history of such heavy-handedness (see Crash). In the Valley of Elah is another entry in his catalogue that overshoots the correct balance between drama and message.

Quantum of Solace

3/4 stars

The comparison that seems to be on the lips of most reviewers of Quantum of Solace is with The Bourne Trilogy, and I can certainly see the elements that prompt it, although I feel they are not prevailing. It's true that the film's frenetic (there's this film's reviewer buzzword) editing and cinematography meet sort of halfway between 2006's Casino Royale and Paul Greengrass's first Bourne film (The Bourne Supremacy). And there's a rooftop parkour chase that will bring back memories of the Tangiers chase scene in Bourne Ultimatum. Still, the feel of the new Bond series is distinct from the Bourne series, which eschewed the tuxedo and cocktail dress elements that are still a major part of the 007 flavor, even in spite of its more gritty character. Like The Bourne Supremacy though, Quantum of Solace does take quick cutting a bit too far, making the action scenes difficult to appreciate or follow. This, along with a preposterous main theme (a pretentious stylistic exercise by Jack White in lieu of actual songwriting) and some uneven sequences, make for very noticable flaws.

In spite of that, I did not dislike the film. This is the first 007 movie to be a sequel to another 007 movie in terms of continuing the other film's plot. At this, it is essentially a success. Daniel Craig continues to bring a solid emotional being to the character, his performance is fierce and moody. Other returning actors include Giancarlo Giannini, Jeffrey Wright and Judi Dench, all of whose characters have interestingly complicated relationships with Craig's Bond. Quantum of Solace is a partner film to Casino Royale, and its events succeed at feeling relevant and necessary to the story that is told. The last half hour of Casino Royale introduced a new premise for a Bond film, that they can be character rather than event driven. QoS is singular in the series in that it is the only movie that follows this logic from start to finish. Yes, it has a primary villain, but neither his plan nor his demise are the main focus, and neither are the mechanations of the umbrella organization Quantum (who were also behind some of the events in the last movie). Instead, the cohesive logic of this movie is formed by Bond's drive to pursue them, his need for closure. In an impressive way, this film's subject is what it says it is.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

3.5/4 stars

I grew up with Star Trek, and although I've never considered myself a die-hard fan (it's just a good TV show to me), I can remember seeing this movie for the first time sometime before age 10. I've probably seen it a few times after that, but long enough ago that it still surprised me. Star Trek II lived in my memory as being a kick ass entry in the franchise, a movie that avoided many of the cheesy pitfalls of its brothers, but it is more than just that. The Wrath of Khan is a tense, thematically complex and well constructed film; in fact, it may be the bar that No Country For Old Men fell short of.

Let me explain... It helps to remember that in the first place, I didn't find No Country For Old Men to be that good, hence my review. But in fact, the films are thematically similar. Both are about a man who feels old and tired, and his quest to bring to justice an enemy of profound evil. Both demonstrate the lawlessness and brutality that can exist in their worlds, and take the lives of many. In No Country For Old Men, those deaths are never resolved, and the only lesson the hero learns is one of despair. In this film, there are conscious acts of self-sacrifice that help put that evil to rest, the kind that Tommy Lee Jones' sheriff lacked the courage to make.

Science fiction fails when it's used as a flavor, a color scheme applied to generic action. Good science fiction, from Blade Runner to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, uses the possibilities of speculative science to explore important questions. Of course, the The Wrath of Khan does use the conventions of the genre for its setting; there are starships whose shields are either up or down at any given moment, and the teleportation technology that can only be used under certain circumstances, and all the other rules that fans of the series know so well. But futuristic technology also gives the film its two most effective symbols.

The first is the Kobayashi Maru. Aging and death are major thematic concerns of this movie, and the Kobayashi Maru mission, a training simulation that tests character by exposing would-be captains to an unavoidable catastrophe, provides a concrete basis for conversations about how the characters face the inevitability of death; discussions of bravery and sacrifice. It also provides the film's shocking introductory scene, which brings this theme to the forefront by portraying the simulated demise of each of the series' main characters (minus Kirk, an exception that proves significant).

The second is a device called Genesis which allows the near instantaneous terraforming of planets, replacing whatever is there with a predetermined pattern of life and growth. This gives humanity the mirroring powers of creation and destruction. Rebirth as a counterpoint to death comes up repeatedly, as does the motif of the death and birth of planets (notice Khan's description of how his own castoff planet became barren). The moral implications of these abilities, as well as the untrusting relationship between science and the military are played upon in the film.

That an entry in a popular science fiction franchise should be so ambitious at all will be a surprise to the expectations of many, but that these themes are all addressed articulately in the space of such a finely structured film is a marvel that should intrigue any viewer.

Max Payne

2/4 stars

How silly of me to think that as a gamer, my intelligence could be respected for 100 minutes straight by Hollywood. You see, Max Payne was a video game released in 2001, one of the first to utilize the "bullet time" concept seen in The Matrix and convert it to a playable experience. More importantly though, at its best, the game was a moody and atmospheric foray into gritty pulp storytelling that used characters' affected perceptions of reality to explore questions of genre and medium. Non-gamers will scoff (then again, at this date, some might not) but if I were reviewing a movie worthy of that game today, I might be giving it four stars.

The disturbing part is that Max Payne (the film) starts off so well. Aesthetically, it's almost dead on. Appropriately, it borrows heavily from The Matrix, and the result is smooth yet textured neo-noir. Mark Wahlberg himself doesn't characterize the motor-mouthed Hammett wannabe that the game provided, but he does alright at creating a new take on the character. Mila Kunis on the other hand plays Mona Sax as though... well, as though she actually played and liked the game, at least (When did Mila Kunis become so fucking good? She actually sort of steals the movie.) and several other actors turn in reasonably flavorful performances. The first hour of Max Payne is patient, intricate and mysterious.

However, when the film reaches its climax, it seems as though someone remembered that they were contractually obligated to deliver a brainless demolition derby to the video game players. We only like skilled genre exercises for the aesthetics anyway, when it comes down to it, we probably want action above all else, and anything we might need to use our heads to work out is swept under a rug easily enough... Right? It's a massive disappointment considering that the film has spent an hour by this time painstakingly setting up characters, clues and questions that are never resolved. Max gets high (perhaps the audience was expected to keep up) and the film never indulges in another coherent thought.

Various points in Max Payne stand out favorably in my memory. The camera lingering on the mouth of a soldier, which turns upward into a disturbingly gleeful smile as he describes the wonder drug that has made him a perfect killing machine. Police cruisers rolling through unplowed snow in the dead of the winter night. A femme fatale slipping out of her clothes in an attempt to evade a question she doesn't want to answer. What I wonder is, how did these moments come from the same filmmaker who gave us this disjointed, insulting climax? Max Payne feels like it was once a fine film, but was the victim of a profit driven editor and a set of unfortunately low expectations.

The Last Kiss

2/4 stars

This is the second film I've seen starring Zach Braff, and surprisingly is far inferior to his earlier work, 2004's Garden State. In that movie, Braff was writer, director and lead, and the result was a middling and formulaic "indie" genre film that seemed to confirm his status as a novice. I would have thought that a different director and a script by eminent writer Paul Haggis would be an improvement. Unfortunately for Braff fans and non-fans alike, this is not the case.

Like Garden State, this is an attempt at an introspective film that comes off as melodramatic due to a lack of veracity. Braff plays Michael, who is in a happy relationship but is bombarded (along with the audience) by images of couples who are unhappy more due to incivility than misunderstanding (as if happy couples ought to be worried by this). When he meets Kim (Rachel Bilson) the two of them have an affair seemingly because he is too passive to avoid it. The film attempts to remind us of the idea that new romances always seem more appealing than familiar ones at first, but is far too heavy-handed in doing so: the interior of each established relationship we see is hellish, whereas the escape represented by Kim crosses the line from idealistic into adolescent fantasy. The power of the film is in the sexual release that her character represents, but the film confuses it for an emotional one. I'm as big a fan of graphic sex and foul language as anyone, but I've never seen a film where they seem more obligatory than in The Last Kiss.

The real shame here is all the wasted talent. Braff and Bilson both have strong TV backgrounds, Tom Wilkinson and Blythe Danner are established veterans, and Casey Affleck has been highly acclaimed for his recent work in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and Gone Baby Gone. Here they all read dialogue that insults them as actors, the worst I've ever seen from Paul Haggis. The soundtrack is good, but seems designed more to impress music geeks than to function as a part of the film (speaking as a music geek, we hate that) and in fact often clashes with the scenes where it is used. There is a shameless scene late in the film where Kim presents a mix cd in an attempt to impress Michael, and in that moment becomes a figure of foolishness and emotional immaturity. Braff designed this soundtrack (as he did the one for Garden State) in an attempt to impress a music savvy audience. What then, are we to think of him?

Stranger Than Fiction

3.5/4 stars

Every time one of these comes out, one of these movies where an SNL clown has been improbably cast as an actor and more or less reveals themself to be one, there's a temptation to view the whole movie through the lens of that disconnection. Adam Sandler has done a few of these lately, and while he's certainly shown himself capable of serious acting, those films have often been somewhat overpraised due only to the element of surprise. So, I'm going to address the Will Ferrell issue first merely in the interest of getting it out of the way, not because it is or should be the central influence on one's appreciation of Stranger Than Fiction.

In some sense what Will Ferrell normally does is much more difficult than what he does here. Removing the limitations of sense and believeability and managing to be hysterically funny within a framework where the audience expects the outrageous is no easy task, many comedic performers burn out quickly (Ferrell sometimes does too). In Stranger Than Fiction, the reinstatement of those limitations does much of the work. Ferrell's persona allows him to be noticed merely by not attempting to be noticed. He's playing the straight man for once, with Emma Thompson and Maggie Gyllenhaal as his foils. This is of course, the same effect as described above in action. Still, Ferrell immerses himself a new character and gives a good performance.

This is the first time I've seen Maggie Gyllenhaal as the heroine of a romantic comedy (one of the genres into which this film falls), which is a shame. I'm afraid she might be the type of actress who is too talented to want to take such roles often, which is too bad, because that's the reason romantic comedies are so often left with lesser actresses. She's cute, charming, lively and engaging, a personality that can pull the Ferrell character from his passivity. Emma Thompson is also brilliant, in an acerbically depressive part that turns out to be in some ways the heart of the film. She doubles as a narrator, which is less of a test, but no less of a delight.

I know that the film's unique plot may not be so unique, but it makes you think anyway, it raises questions and that makes it worthwhile. For instance, if Thompson's author character created Ferrell's Harold Crick, and the Gyllenhaal character is perfect for him, does that mean she necessarily created her as well? Can a fictional character be the perfect partner for a living person? I especially like the ponderance of the moral implications of killing a character off. I sometimes think that the artists of the 20th century have transformed the memento mori from a moral lesson to a cliched artistic crutch, a way to achieve easy poignancy and the appearance of meaning. As the movie says, isn't someone like Harold Crick (and indeed, many other ill fated heroes) worth keeping around?

The visuals in this film are also well worth mention. There's the obviously cool effect of the numbers, charts and lines that follow Ferrell's character around, aiding the narration. There's also the near perfect blandness of his surroundings, and his personal appearance that invokes a Magritte painting (with clear intention). Many of the other characters seem to live in different movies. Thompson's reminded me of Paul Haggis's film Crash, with its combination of clinical appearance and lethal dangers. Gyllenhaal's bakery is somewhat fairytale-like, while the Dustin Hoffman's character's office invokes a more refined, academic atmosphere (and I'm sure smells of rich mahogany).

There's a lot of great stuff in this movie, and while it's still really just entertainment (its metafictional components raise questions, but offer no true artistic thesis), it's also well crafted and thought provoking drama.

Pittsburgh

3.5/4 stars

A ridiculous film, to watch, to talk about, and to have been made. Pittsburgh is a mockumentary that doesn't acknowledge that it is one in any of the ordinary superficial ways. The characters all have the same names and general life circumstances (so far as we the audience can tell) as the actors who portray them, the film never flinches from its supposed reality. It simply veers so abruptly and completely into the absurd as to make its fictionality obvious.

In a singularly memorable premise, Jeff Goldblum decides to do a stage version of The Music Man so that his Canadian girlfriend can participate and get a green card. This was his second idea. She'll be playing Marian, so of course Goldblum must be Harold Hill, a part which he believes he was born to play. Does it sound ridiculous enough yet? He's no Robert Preston.

Moby and Ed Begley Jr appear in supporting roles as themselves. Each has their own particular quirk (giving them away would ruin the experience) which makes them seem more real at first than their celebrity personas, then gradually removes them from any semblance of reality. Everyone involved in the making of this movie is a great sport, not just for making such a joke of themselves, but for doing so with no wink to the camera whatsoever, no acknowledgement that this comic version of them is fictional.

The genius of this film is the way that it pulls you in to what you believe is a real documentary and then gradually lets you go. Part of the charm of such a premise requires that the film be somewhat obscure, but I do wonder how this film, as absorbing, masterfully executed and hilaruous as it is, hasn't been seen by more people. Have they been in thinking jail?

The Proposition

2/4 stars

The Proposition is a slowly building movie. It starts in the midst of a bloody gun battle, probably in an attempt to convey the misconception that it will be an eventful film. Shortly thereafter, we are witness to the proposition in question, and then spend most of the rest of the film waiting for the situation to unfold. Because it may have been only my curiosity about the nature of the proposition that tricked me into seeing this movie, because it turns out to be a fairly minor plot point, and because numerous summaries of the film that I've seen since have revealed it, I will do the same: Guy Pearce is asked, in exchange for the freedom of himself and his relatively innocent younger brother, to bring his villainous older brother to justice, dead or alive. This is the scenario, as Pearce's character is allowed to disappear into the desert.

And then it stews in the heat of the Australian outback for roughly an hour. This wouldn't have been such a bad thing, necessarily. The cinematography of the film portrays a sort of lovely ugliness to the landscape and its inhabitants. Nothing is frosted over in this film, nothing is romanticized or idealized about the situation or the characters. The film shows moments of powerful tragedy, and powerful emotion. However, not much of anything really happens. The time isn't devoted to revealing the subtleties of an intricate plot, nor really engaging the internal lives of the characters. Instead, the film keeps a close eye on the compelling harshness of the scene, and the tragedy that is unfolding. It does those things very well, but I wanted more from it.

There's a lot of talent here. I was drawn to the movie initially because its writer is Nick Cave, better known a rock musician whose songs are dark and dissonant, but with a rough and hidden beauty. Guy Pearce brings a strong presence to this role, even in his inactivity. He exudes a sense of turmoil which is brought on not by uncertainty, but by the presence of conflicting certainties. Ray Winstone plays a multi-faceted character who the script simply neglects to fully investigate. Director John Hillcoat displays great potential, and does a lot with what he's given. The problem with the film is that Cave's novice script is too content with mood and foreboding and not curious enough about the people involved.

The Matrix (new full length review)

4/4 stars

The Matrix is one of the most watched and emulated masterpieces of the last ten years, a commercial success and an aesthetic touchstone. But what is it that really makes it so good? On a basic level, the plot is fascinating, unpredictable and well executed. The movie follows the blueprint of many of the great blockbusters by combining action, mystery and romance. The visuals, of course, are innovating and immersive. The performances are also well handled, Keanu Reeves isn't exactly introspective, but he strikes the right notes; Hugo Weaving is merciless and imposing; and Laurence Fishburne makes Morpheus into a figure of admiration and charisma.

The key to the film's greatness though, in my opinion, is its mastery of each of the genres that it borrows from. The first hour or so of The Matrix is the most atmospheric and stylish neo-noir I've ever seen, so much so that when Christopher Nolan set out to create his own noir film Memento, the reuse of Joe Pantoliano and Carrie-Anne Moss from this film seemed wise yet intuitive. The opening act of The Matrix is moody, paranoid and suspenseful. It also presents its fictionalized subculture (in this case drugs and computer hacking) fearlessly, a mark of both great neo-noir (Brick, for example) and great dystopian sci-fi. Which brings us to the next genre: when The Matrix trades its grimy city streets for an even grimier post apocalyptic wasteland, it realizes the futuristic weirdness of a science fiction landscape perfectly. The "real world" of the Wachowski brothers' creation is imagined in thorough and thoughtful detail, with a number of strange yet logical eccentricities (the hovercraft, their EMP weapons, the flavorless food that comes from a faucet) that make it memorable.

The Matrix also utilizes two distinct action film genres in a clever combination that was one of its most borrowed traits. One is American style pseudo-realism, with its obsession for authentic guns and modern military technology. The other is the foreign martial arts film, whose conventions are worked into The Matrix in clever and unexepected ways (the virtual dojo scene between Reeves and Fishburne for instance). But the true brilliance here is the way that the two are seamlessly combined in the film's final act. Neo must use the fighting techniques represented by both on his way to final victory. This style of fighting may be the truest part of the vision the Wachowski brothers brought to the film.

Finally, there is the often cited philosophical core of the film. Those doubting the sincerity behind the use of this term may want to familiarize themselves with its definition. Ponderance of reality, of what is known, what can be discerned from the senses, and of the true nature of existence is the very core of philosophy. In short, Jules and Vincent arguing about the intention behind a footrub in Pulp Fiction is not really philosophy, Morpheus's question "have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real..." most certainly is.

(Note: One of the first film reviews I ever wrote, as a homework assignment in the 9th grade, was of this very film. I hope this second attempt is an improvement.)

25th Hour

4/4 stars

I'm the type of viewer who can be quite satisfied with a movie that has little more by way of action than interesting conversation. For the first hour or so of 25th Hour, it is that kind of film, patient and meditative, establishing characters through conversations that are snappy and intelligent, but also flavorfully coarse. The vulgarity adds to the urgency already underpinning these scenes, because tomorrow the main character goes to prison. These characters have an edge, they are neither a stand in for the audience nor the writer, but solid, grounded individuals who seem to live in the same world that we do. In the second half of the film, the dimensions of these characters are tested, they are pushed to make difficult choices. They reveal their flaws, and crack in the places that are weak.

The acting in this film is extraordinary. Edward Norton plays the condemned man with an air of forced calm and an always clear impression of the rage and despair beneath it. He always seems about to boil over, and begins to on one or two occasions, but there is such reserve even in these moments as to suggest much more still contained. Rosario Dawson walks a fine line in her performance. She plays a character who may not be trustworthy, but does so with an intense and compelling honesty nonetheless. Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays a man who willingly suffers for his principals, but is unsure of what the world expects of him. His sacrifices as a teacher go unappreciated, and he is tempted to allow himself one particular indiscretion to compensate for this. Anna Paquin is that temptation, a student, and she also has a delicate balance to keep. Though she is seductive, the vulnerability of her performance conveys the unsung truth of the situation: the damage that would be done to the teacher should their romance come to fruition is secondary to the damage that would be done to her. Finally, there's Brian Cox as Norton's father, who only seems underused until he tips his hand in the film's final act.

The events of this film threaten to overwhelm its characters, but without seeming unrealistic or squelching the smaller nuances that make them unique. Like anything by Spike Lee, the film is contemporary and somewhat political, but not in a way that overshadows its humanity. The presence of New York City is essential to the movie, it informs it visually, culturally and politically. The look of the movie is gorgeous and clean, particularly as it serves to illustrate two extended sequences that bookend the film. They are monologues of explosive and emotional poetry, delivered by Norton and Cox that shape the way we come to the film, and our impression as we leave it. 25th Hour is a movie that is compelling both in terms of drama and filmmaking, and is among the best efforts of everyone involved.

Leaving Las Vegas

2.5/4 stars

Readers of my other blog will remember my affinity for the Pogues song Fairytale of New York, which is about the reminiscence of an Irish couple’s early idealism faced with the harsh realities of poverty and addiction that they endure. Leaving Las Vegas is a film that is very much like that song in spirit. Both capture, with equal honesty and intensity, the joys and horrors of a tumultuous relationship. Indeed, one of the things that impressed me most about Leaving Las Vegas is the tender sweetness of the love story. Many films have demonstrated that it is not that difficult to show strife and dysfunction, but this one tempers it with an alluring yet realistic vision of potential happiness for its characters.

The cinematography and the soundtrack are smooth yet expressive. The camera work goes from intimate to distant, lucid to hazy depending on the needs of the scene, entrancing the viewer with powerful images, melodic delivery and calculated reticence. I found the various love songs that the soundtrack calls upon to be especially effective; they can convey the dreamy quality of romance, but also the uncomfortable spiraling of a relationship that is out of control. Actors Nicholas Cage and Elisabeth Shue do a good job of keeping even the happy moments tense and ill at ease, and the terrible ones retain a faint optimism.

Still, even with everything that works, the film is not perfect. What makes the aforementioned song so enjoyable is that despite its bitter outcome, it still has beauty as a song. The film is not so graceful. Captivating as it may be, Leaving Las Vegas proves clumsy whenever it tries to do anything of any real subtlety. The tragedies of the film are always grotesque, they only vary in scale. Even when their unhappiness is beneath the surface, it is monstrous and unlivable. The film gains points for being unflinching, but loses points in realism. The lovers say awful things to one another for no apparent reason. Too much of the emotion is expressed by the characters simply stating the way they are. “I came here to drink myself to death,” says Nicholas Cage. “I’ll go back to my glamorous life of being alone. All I have to come home to is a bottle of mouthwash to get the taste of come out of my mouth. I’m tired of being alone,” says Elisabeth Shue, when Nicholas Cage suggests that he might leave. Such lines powerful but aren’t convincing. The actors lack nothing in conviction, but their nuance leaves room for improvement.

announcement

All of the old reviews have now been posted. From here on out, all reviews are new.

Napoleon Dynamite

0.5/4 stars

I agree with everything bad that I've ever heard said about this movie. It contains no actual humor. It's unbearably slow and dull. Worst of all, it pretends to champion misfits and outsiders, but its popularity comes from mocking and caricaturing them.

Written June 25, 2007.

Closer

3.5/4 stars

A clever concept with top notch writing and actors who know how to translate excellent dialogue to the screen. The camera style and use of music are right on as well. If there's anything to be desired, it's a moral center. You would not want to know these people.

Written June 26, 2007.

High Fidelity

4/4 stars

Even though this movie came out in 2000, it feels to me like it's been around forever; it just informed so much of my adolescence. A must for music geeks, Nick Hornby fans, or anyone who likes a good romantic comedy.

Written June 26, 2007.

Man on Fire

3.5/4 stars

Worth seeing for Denzel Washington and Dakota Fanning's intense performances (and their unlikely chemistry) as well as Tony Scott's distinct visual style.

Written June 26, 2007.

The Untouchables

3/4 stars

While the script could be better, this movie sees virtuoso performances from Connery, De Niro, director De Palma and composer Ennio Morricone. A long time favorite of mine.

Written June 26, 2007.

A Fish Called Wanda

4/4 stars

A comedic experiment between two Pythons and two other talented actors that pays off to great effect. Undoubtedly one of the most hilarious movies ever made, in fact (if Wikipedia is to be believed), it's so funny it killed a guy once. Justice demands four stars.

Written June 26, 2007.

Memento

4/4 stars

I don't really know what to say about this movie. It's amazing. Three actors carry almost the entire movie, and one fairly complicated plot. Thematically dense. A triumph for its director, Chris Nolan. Stands up well to repeated viewings, and in fact almost demands them. It's a sad thing when you finally understand all this movie's mysteries, because unraveling them is such fun.

Written June 26, 2007.

Casino Royale

4/4 stars

It's great to see a lot of what this movie brings to the 007 baccarat table: a renewal for the franchise, a story worth paying attention to and a longer running time (my taste in how long a movie should be runs closer to three hours than two). Daniel Craig resembles both Connery and the grittier Bond of the books, and he was a great choice. The only thing the movie is missing would be the baccarat, replaced with nonsensical poker action, making you wonder who the change is meant to please.

Written June 26, 2007.

Terminator 2: Judgement Day

4/4 stars

A masterpiece of the action genre. Doesn't insult your intelligence and maintains strong pacing, with a number of outstanding setpieces.

Written June 26, 2007.

A Beautiful Mind

3/4 stars

Not bad, but vastly overrated. A good attempt, and a decent performance by Crowe, but ultimately clumsy and more than a little disrespectful of the audience.

Written June 26, 2007.

Brokeback Mountain

4/4 stars

Successful on many levels. Works as a period piece, artistically directed (Ang Lee is a favorite director) and does a good job getting the audience to really care about an unconventional relationship. Great performances too.

Collateral

4/4 stars

Beautifully shot, tense action and strong characters, plus great work by Cruise and Foxx. Definitely worthwhile, and it made me a fan of Michael Mann's work.

Written June 26, 2007.

The Silence of the Lambs

4/4 stars

A great combination of mystery and suspense with intelligence, depth and character. Plus a defining moment for Hopkins.

Written June 27, 2007.

V for Vendetta

4/4 stars

Political paranoia at its best. A new addition to the great dystopian classics. Also succeeded in capturing a very graphic novel feel (or perhaps the cinematic feel of the graphic novel). This movie marked the first time I've ever been really disappointed over a comic movie being overlooked at Oscar time.

Written June 27. 2007.

Aliens

2.5/4 stars

A unique achievement... I think this movie may hold the record for keeping the audience on the edge of their seats for the longest continual time. Not that that's necessarily pleasant.

Written June 27. 2007.

Chicago

1/4 stars

I accept that I'm in the minority opinion here, but I hated this overblown, insipid mess. Good actors trying way too hard to be bad (in a purely non-threatening, generic way).

Written June 27, 2007.

Pulp Fiction

4/4 stars

Never duplicated, this movie blends early 90s dialogue heavy indie with the feel of 60s and 70s crime films and truly lives up to its name. Incredibly well written, directed, photographed and acted. In short, everything is dead on.

Written June 28, 2007.

Batman

3.5/4 stars

While it may seem dark and garish, there's a lot going on in this over-the-top extravaganza that doesn't meet the eye.

Written June 28, 2007.

Mission: Impossible III

2.5/4 stars

An improvement over number two, this movie comes back to the M:I concept a little bit, but the script is ultimately shallow and simplistic. Biggest offense is the undisguised McGuffin of the Rabbit's Foot. Biggest standout is Hoffman's twisted performance.

Written June 28, 2007.

The Matrix Revolutions

3/4 stars

The sequels (which should really be taken as a single movie) were flawed, but should not be quickly dismissed, as they brought some interesting ideas to the series. The common perception that they were brainless is really more of a self-fulfilling prophecy thing.

Written June 30, 2007.

Good Will Hunting

4/4 stars

I don't have a lot to say about this one. Matt Damon's character is well layered, and Robin Williams demonstrates that he is a great actor, despite appearing in some pretty bad movies.

Written June 30, 2007.

Resident Evil

2/4 stars

A fairly competent action film. The biggest disappointment is the two dimensional characters. For those who don't know, the game series has a large cast of well developed and iconic characters that would have been awesome if faithfully realized on the big screen.

Written June 30, 2007.

The Last Samurai

3.5/4 stars

Really gorgeous picture. Tom Cruise in a very complex role. With the historical epic being essentially its own genre these days, it's nice to see one that's legitimately great, not just an overblown disappointment.

Written June 30, 2007.

Marie Antionette (new review!)

2.5/4 stars

I wouldn't have thought it possible for Sophia Coppola to create a boring movie. Her previous effort, Lost in Translation, is gorgeous, bittersweet, introspective and funny. With Marie Antionette, once again, I appreciated what was offered visually, I liked the characterization (as executed both by Coppola as writer and her cast) and enjoyed the soundtrack. Still, I found the movie dragged on, it was ultimately unsatisfying, and yes, boring. I think of it as an important virtue to be able to have patience for movies that reward it, but Marie Antionette simply doesn't have enough going on to justify its slow pace and length. It isn't that the construction is poor, it's that the purpose is lacking. Take for instance a scene that occurs about a half hour into the movie, in which the title character stands naked in a room full of important visitors, waiting for them to ceremonially dress her. The scene is a funny and effective illustration of the way in which status and expectations have deprived her of a sense of self. But at half an hour into the movie, we know all this already. What would have been an effective scene in the first fifteen minutes becomes a sign of a film struggling to take off. The film meanders, and can't seem to settle on a message. Its trappings exude that it wants to be a movie about a bad girl, but it can't bring itself to portray Antionette as anything less than a saint. She cheats on her husband, but she's forgiven for that at first by his inattention to her, and second by her self-sacrificing decision to stand by him. She parties too much, but the film seems to say that doing so is her only way of winning back any degree of teenage self expression, and besides, she is shown to have great compassion for her people and those around her anyway. The movie is aggressively modern in its execution, but gets weighed down in courtly period drama. There is an obsession with historical flavor, but a lack of historical context. This brings me to my final objection (I would say that what comes next is a spoiler, except that this being a historical movie, you probably already know it, and anyway the movie doesn't show it), the fact the movie makes no mention of Antionette's execution. I've read all sorts of reasons why this is a brilliant decision, but it seemed to me to be the film unable to stomach its own subject matter. Perhaps actually addressing the main character's downfall would bring some resolution to whatever arc the film is trying to build, after all you can't have a tragedy if you ignore the tragic ending. As it is, this is an overly long movie that ironically omits its final act.

American History X

2.5/4 stars

Don't get me wrong, it's powerful, but there are major problems with this movie. If it leaves you feeling uneasy, it may not just be because of the disturbing subject matter, but also the failure to treat it with the proper weight.

Written June 29, 2007.

Superman Returns

2/4 stars

Superman is a character whose greatness and stature tend to distract from the need for personality. The more iconic and reverent a Superman story tries to be, the more boring it gets. This is the sad fact with this film. Almost too dull to sit through, and even if you have the endurance, it's a joyless experience. They should try making Death and Return of Superman into a movie. The crazy cast of characters might introduce some fun into the mix.

Written June 29, 2008.

Enemy of the State

3.5/4 stars

Basically a sequel to The Conversation, which is itself an excellent work of paranoia and suspense. This movie provides an unsettling look at the possibilities for complete surveillance that exist in a high tech society.

Written July 29, 2007.

American Beauty

1/4 stars

Ah, finally a movie giving smug, fashionably apathetic teenagers the recognition they deserve!

Written June 30, 2007.

The Matrix Reloaded

3.5/4 stars

It may not match the greatness of The Matrix, but this movie is really a fairly strong follow-up. The fight scene in which Reeves faces down hundreds of Hugo Weavings is great, the highway sequence even better.

Written July 1, 2007.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

2/4 stars

Way too fast paced, the script seemed to have no attention span. You know the little "previously" segment on the front of a TV show? This is the only movie I've ever seen that reminded me of watching one of those for two hours, a result of trying to cram too much into too short a time.

Written July 1, 2007.

Dog Day Afternoon

3.5/4 stars

With the exception of a couple of extraneous scenes that slow down the pace at key moments, this is a thoroughly engrossing and realistic piece.

Written July 3, 2007.

Proof

3.5/4 stars

Worth seeing for the way Paltrow and Hopkins both magnificently walk the line of insanity in their performances.

Written July 10, 2007.

Phone Booth

3/4 stars

Tense and well constructed, Kiefer is chilling, but I had higher hopes when I heard the premise. A great director and a better screenplay could have made a masterpiece out of this.

Writtem July 10. 2007.

Batman & Robin

0.5/4 stars

What a piece of shit. I can't call it the worst comic book movie ever made, because I don't want to trudge through its competition, but it's easily the worst big budget, big hype comic book movie I've ever seen. If I seem overly wary of the genre at times, this movie is probably the reason why.

Written July 22, 2007.

Little Miss Sunshine

4/4 stars

The characters are so brilliantly realized that I was sad to see it end. Perfect casting. An excellent, thoughtful comedy.

Written July 10, 2007.

Snatch.

4/4 stars

Guy Ritchie perfects his style in this film. The pace is intense but not overwhelming, the visual techniques stylish and original , and most importantly, the criminal world is completely engrossing. On a side note, close listening with the aid of subtitles will reveal that Brad Pitt is not, in fact, entirely incomprehensible.

Written July 10, 2007.

Miami Vice

3/4 stars

Michael Mann has incredible style with crime films and this is no exception, but the characters lacked the depth one would expect after seeing Heat and Collateral.

Written July 18, 2007.

Heat

4/4 stars

This movie epitomizes everything that's great about Michael Mann's technique, and pairs it with a script that's epic in its handling of the internal lives of so many interconnected characters. The acting and cinematography are also amazing. A masterpiece.

Written July 18, 2007.

My Super Ex-Girlfriend

2.5/4 stars

Good and not so good in almost equal measure here. Good: Thurman, Rainn Wilson, Anna Faris. Disappointingly off their game: Luke Wilson and Eddie Izzard. Always unbearable: Wanda Sykes. I do like to see a world with superpowered characters in it where it's still made clear that the superbeings aren't the center of everyone's lives. My favorite part might be the banter between Wilson and Wilson that reflects this.

Written July 18, 2007.

The X-Files

3/4 stars

This should be looked at as an episode of the show that just happens to be a movie. The thrill of seeing The X-Files with big screen and big budget is fantastic, and the story/writing make this a high quality entry in the mythos. That said, I can't stand by the often repeated notion that the movie can be enjoyed out of context, but then again, I really wouldn't know.

Written July 18, 2007.

Shopgirl

3/4 stars

For the first act, I found this to be a boring movie about boring people. By the end I discovered a film that was both beautiful and truthful, and I understood the purpose of the earlier drudgery (a realistic demonstation that the characters lack a genuine connection) but the beginning still didn't sit right with me. Why watch a movie about boring depressed people, when you can watch one about interesting depressed people (like Lost in Translation)? So, a worthwhile story, but loses points as a film.

Written July 22, 2007.

Great Expectations

4/4 stars

An excellent combination of the classic with a modern style and psychological approach. Very well made.

Written July 22, 2007.

The Bourne Ultimatum

3.5/4 stars

For me, this movie really made the trilogy. I was a fan of the first two, but this entry really raised it to a level that was psychological and emotional on top of the fast paced sophisticated spy drama we saw before. Which is not to say that these elements were absent from the first two movies, but only that it wasn't until the finale that they struck the perfect balance.

Written August 16, 2007.

The Bourne Identity

3/4 stars

Possibly my least favorite of the three. A bit clumsy compared to the latter two. Example: why does Castel come through Bourne's window on a wire to attack? That's a little over the top and flashy. Some points back for conveying the premise, a task the other two movies obviously aren't required to do; as well as for Clive Owen's cool, understated performance.

Written August 16, 2007.

The Bourne Supremacy

3/4 stars

Improves upon Identity with a tighter pace and a more intense directorial style (although parts were just too hard to visually comprehend). On the downside, a lot less happens in this film than in the other two of the series.

Written August 16, 2007.

Signs

3.5/4 stars

A lot of good stuff here: the parable, the well imagined plot, and the acting. My favorite however, is Shyamalan's sense for well crafted, classic style scares.

Written August 18, 2007.

Titanic

4/4 stars

Yes, the movie has a sometime weakness for clumsy, overly sappy dialogue between the two leads. It's still an incredibly made epic though.

Written September 8, 2007.

Spider-Man

3/4 stars

A pretty good movie, but with a disappointing ending. A little more self-important and clunky than its two superior sequels.

Written September 8, 2007.

Sin City

2.5/4 stars

Propelled by a distinctive style and an entertaining storyline, these unfortunately do not overcome uneven performances (some are inspired, but there are a few times in the film when you wonder why a competent director would keep the take you just saw) and an unnecessary degree of unpleasantness.

Written September 8, 2007.

Hitch

3/4 stars

The opening sequence of this movie is quite well made. It's interesting even on a purely academic level. The rest of the flick is okay too (if you like romantic comedies and Will Smith's familiar brand of humor).

Written September 8, 2007.

Gladiator

2/4 stars

A mediocre Braveheart knockoff whose undue praise was a symptom of the Academy's incomprehensible love affair with Russell Crowe.

Written September 8, 2007.

Austin Powers in Goldmember

1/4 stars

Apart from the hilarious opening sequence, this movie spends most of its time proving that the Austin Powers formula has gone stale, and trying to make a joke out of that fact doesn't make it any less so.

Written September 8, 2007.

Love Actually

4/4 stars

My very favorite romantic comedy. The cast is amazing, the writing is alternatingly hilarious and subtle, and the use of music is inspired. The real innovation of this movie is to apply the "hyperlink" style of film to a new genre that puts it to good use.

Written September 8, 2007.

X-Men

3/4 stars

As a fan of the X-Men in print, I was very eager for this movie to exist, and glad it did well. But, the problem with it and its sequels is that they still fail to epitomize the world of the X-Men that I know and love. Certainly some of the actors are dead on in their roles: Jackman, Paquin, Stewart. Others, particularly Marsden and Berry fail to hit on what makes their particular character interesting. And, by giving the characters relationships with one another that don't exist in the comics (Mystique as Magneto's henchman, Iceman as Rogue's love interest just for example) they fundamentally change their characterization and muddle their motivations. Furthermore, the storyline of the movies may deliver the required balance of drama and adrenaline, but it lacks the complexity and epic quality of the classic X-Men stories.

Written October 15, 2007.

Batman Forever

1/4 stars

God, this movie is terrible. Though it has the benefit of a few good actors (Kilmer, Jones) to balance out the not so good (Nicole Kidman consistently fails to impress me, and in 1995 Jim Carrey simply wasn't an actor yet) and a few redeeming moments, the overall product is an insultingly stupid bastardization of everything Batman is supposed to be. Instead of gritty, moody, psychologically complex crime drama, we get this garish carnival of over the top design, direction and personalities.

Written October 15, 2007.

A History of Violence

2.5/4 stars

This movie was well constructed and well acted enough to capture my attention for its duration, but it's ultimately disappointing in its pointlessness and ocassional implausibility. (For instance, Mortensen's crazy ninja skills don't seem quite justified by the fact that he used to be a hitman, especially since none of the other hitmen in the movie have them.) All in all, it's unpleasant enough with too little purpose that I can't recommend it. Oh, and William Hurt's Oscar nomination for such a short and cliched appearance, so obviously beneath his talents, is laughable.

Written October 15, 2007.

Die Another Day

2.5/4 stars

Possibly the worst Brosnan Bond movie, next to Tomorrow Never Dies. As always, Brosnan's performance is the strong point. It's sad, considering how well Brosnan fit the role and made it his own, that the movies they put him in couldn't be better.

Written October 15, 2007.

Forrest Gump

2.5/4 stars

While it has moments of effective resonance, overall I find this movie to be a little overrated and kitschy in its intentional and shameless emotional manipulation.

Written November 12, 2007.

Music and Lyrics

3.5/4 stars

Hugh Grant has been the master of this kind of movie for years, but surprisingly, Drew Barrymore is also becoming a favorite of mine lately. They have an unexpected chemistry in this, a somewhat typical charming, intelligent romantic comedy. The cheesy song that begins and ends the movie (and has been stuck in my head since I first saw it) is just a bonus.

Written December 2, 2007.

The Holiday

3/4 stars

Cameron Diaz has been in a number of fine movies and has often surprised me with good performances, but there's something about her (oh, unintentional joke there) that just doesn't grab me. She just doesn't exude enough emotion to make me interested in her characters. Too bad then, that she apparently has more star power than Kate Winslet, who I haven't really seen in this kind of movie before and does very well, despite the lesser amount of attention given to her storyline.

Written December 2, 2007.

Live Free or Die Hard

3/4 stars

This movie was just as idiotically intense and exciting as I was hoping it would be, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Still, the potential for repeat viewings could have been much improved by action scenes a little sharper and one liners a little smarter. The original Die Hard was a classic for a reason. This is just popcorn, albeit damn tasty.

Written December 2, 2007.

Superbad

2.5/4 stars

Not as impressive as 40 Year Old Virgin or Knocked Up, this movie's structure is a mess and the material is subpar for this team.

Written January 27, 2008.

Juno

2.5/4 stars

It seems like once a year there's an indie movie that all college students simultaneously go crazy for. So, when I say that Juno is this year's Little Miss Eternal Sunshine, this is more a simple fact about the state of current events than a complaint. Nonetheless, while I've seen a lot of quirky, clever films in this genre, I've never seen one that tries so hard to nail it as Juno. It's interesting how the indie film/indie rock/indie culture aesthetics work together to build hype for a movie like this. I knew for instance from the start of the film that I'd be hearing Piazza New York Catcher at some point, and I wasn't disappointed. The film is similarly unchallenging in almost every other respect. In the title character we've got probably the most blatent Mary Sue ever put on film. The movie doesn't really bother to give us characters with flaws (except for the strawmen we're clearly supposed to dislike) but icons that epitomize what the filmmakers see as cool. All this isn't to say that I didn't find Juno enjoyable (though at times it became far too absorbed in its own cuteness), but rather that it isn't substantial enough to live up to its hype.

Written January 27, 2008.

3:10 to Yuma

4/4 stars

One of the great things about the western genre is that it's one of the few (probably alongside comic book movies) that can support a seamless transition from serious, sometimes Oscar-caliber dramatic acting to adrenaline fueled action. This movie does so well at both that it makes you wonder why other films seem to find the balance so hard. While the entire cast is fantastic, obviously the two stars are the standouts. Christian Bale adds another intense, layered performance to his resume. Meanwhile Russell Crowe captivates in his performance as my favorite brand of villain: polite, conversational, and yet utterly chilling. I've been unimpressed by Crowe in the past, but here he pulls together a number of phenomenal elements that make for one of the best movies of the year, and the best westerns of all time.

Written January 31, 2008.

Atonement

4/4 stars

To put it simply, Atonement is one of the greatest film adaptations of a novel that I've ever seen, and the source is one of my favorite books. The unique storytelling techniques of the novel are translated brilliantly to the screen, and in combination with a near-perfect cast (every character was almost exactly as I would imagine them) result in an incredibly moving dramatic experience. The acting, cinematography and the pacing are all dead on (don't underestimate this last point, it's essential in adaptation that things seem to take about the right amount of time), and the film also includes the most impressive tracking sequence that I can remember. Very likely the best film of 2007.

Written January 31, 2008.

No Country For Old Men

1/4 stars

Having already heard the generous praise of this movie from all corners, I spent its entire two hours looking for something to like about it. Sadly, I was unsuccessful. This film has no strong themes, no real character development, almost no music, and no resolution. Not to say that it wasn't well made, that it didn't effectively establish suspense and that it wasn't at least somewhat engrossing, but does that matter? Are those qualities supposed to be enough? In this film, the characters are their actions, nothing more. Like just about everyone else, I'm a big fan of the Coen brothers' Fargo. This is not that film. It lacks the moral center, the subtle interactions between people, the conflict of ideals, and dozens of other things that made Fargo so good. Though the Tommy Lee Jones characters shares some traits with Frances McDormand's, he isn't really a full fledged character, so much as a mouthpiece for an unrealistically bleak worldview. Likewise, Bardem's character is merely an embodiment of this. The fact that he runs around flipping a coin doesn't make him an "agent of fate" as has so often been stated, it merely means that he thinks of himself as one. Though Bardem's performance is good (at what little he's given to do), the character isn't original, just another manifestation of the brainless Hollywood villain who runs around blasting everything in sight. It's as if they thought that by letting him stand unopposed they were creating a new and ingeniously original character. Having considered what the movie has to offer, I see no reason to move from my initial judgement coming out of the theater. No Country For Old Men is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

Written February 4, 2008.

There Will Be Blood

3.5/4 stars

Considering the incredible achievement of Paul Thomas Anderson's masterpiece, Magnolia, this movie has a lot to live up to. The bad news is that in terms of scope and narrative, There Will Be Blood doesn't compare. Nonetheless, as a character study the movie is efficient and artistically sucessful, with a number of excellent performances. Daniel Day-Lewis certainly deserves strong consideration for the Best Actor Oscar this year; and Paul Dano, who was impressive in Little Miss Sunshine, has outdone himself with his portrayal of the two-faced Eli Sunday. In terms of directorial effort, Anderson has done an excellent job at evoking the feel of the time period, in terms of the production itself as well as cinematography and the use of the score by Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood. The film doesn't only evoke the time period, it also calls to mind the early days of cinema, adding an interesting metanarrative effect. I cannot help but compare There Will Be Blood in my mind with another recent film and fellow Oscar contender No Country For Old Men. Both have been lauded as gripping studies of profoundly evil characters, but There Will Be Blood makes such a claim about its rival look absurd. Whereas that movie could only convey evil through an endless stream of senselessly violent acts, Anderson provides a film that uses violence sparingly and to shocking effect, in order to expore depths of character that No Country for Old Men cannot begin to approach.

Written February 5, 2008.

Peter's Friends

3.5/4 stars

While this movie contains both excellent dramatic moments and memorable comedic ones, the writing isn't quite up to the level of the talented ensemble cast. Still, they make up for what is lacking and create a highly enjoyable entry in the group-dramedy tradition, along with films like The Big Chill and The Breakfast Club.

Written February 20, 2008.

Michael Clayton

4/4 stars

My first impulse when I began writing this review was to praise Clooney's performance, but it dawned on me that any attempt to do so is regrettably compromised by the fact I have yet to see some of the work he is most reknowned for, an oversight that I am now hastened to remedy. In the meantime though, I will say that this is the best performance I have ever seen George Clooney give. His forceful yet measured persona stands in contrast to the manic, loquacious realization that Tom Wilkinson provides for the best supporting role of 2007; and both are effective enough to stand out in a movie that is superb on many levels. While it doesn't deliver a particularly strong emotional punch, Michael Clayton is powerful in its technique and its gripping plot. As the end credits begin to roll, the camera stays with the title character, seemingly not wanting to look away. I sympathized; the writing here is so crisp, the direction so mesmerizing that I didn't want the movie to end. For the first time since last year's The Departed, I found a movie that I immediately wanted to watch again.

Written February 20, 2008.

American Gangster

3/4 stars

A viewer coming to American Gangster expecting to see something like a formula (or even an exceptional) crime film will be disappointed to find it a somewhat different kind of movie. This isn't an operatic bloodbath, it's more of a biopic. Denzel Washington is top shelf of course, and it's not that he doesn't play a powerful and charismatic personality, but he doesn't do it in the way we have come to expect. Russell Crowe meanwhile, who I have rather pointedly disliked up until recently, gives his second inspired performance of the past year, after 3:10 to Yuma. Though separated for most of the film, when the two meet face to face, the result is a scene that I have a feeling will be well remembered. If this movie has a weakness though, it's that we can't really connect with Washington's character in the way we want to. We never get to see him hurt or challenged. In retrospect, I am also uncomfortable with the almost completely positive light in which the titular gangster is shown, given that he is a real person, and the fact that he apparently contributed a great deal to the making of the film. There are two sides to every story, but this film seems to be a little unbalanced toward the "outlaw as hero" interpretation.

Written February 21, 2008.

Hellboy

3.5/4 stars

The best comic book adaptations always seem to be the ones that can capture unique and compelling characters with a good mixture of drama and humor. This film does that well, and also provides an incredibly imagined and skillfully realized world (courtesy of Mike Mignola and Guillermo Del Toro, respectively). The pace is a bit slow at the beginning and end, but all in all an entertaining and well made movie.

Written March 17, 2008.

Saving Private Ryan

4/4 stars

Incredible. The sheer accomplishment of the epic battle scenes is one thing, but the more subtle moments of genuine drama define the movie. Numerous great actors appear at the top of their game, and the whole thing is shot beautifully.

Written March 24, 2008.

Constantine

3/4 stars

Keanu Reeves is at the same calibre of acting here as he was in The Matrix films. I mean that as a compliment, I don't have much patience for the unfair singling out of Keanu as a bad actor that's so popular. He has his troublesome moments (and with bad editing, that can happen to anyone) but he's still a head and shoulders above plenty of vacant, good-looking people in Hollywood. The action is also on the same level as the aforementioned trilogy, with some stylistic differences. I found the world of the movie, its use of Catholicism as a mythological backdrop both startling and engrossing. On the negative side though, the supporting cast could use a bit more depth and development, and the story seems more complicated than it really is at times due to muddled delivery. This movie encourages the audience to think, but the sheer spectacle at times seems to act as a reward for not doing so. Still, a gripping and inventive film.

Written March 26, 2008.

Bee Movie

3/4 stars

This is actually a pretty funny movie, and Seinfeld's distinctive observational comedic stylings make a welcome and refreshing return (in his first big project since his eponymous TV show ended ten years ago). His particular form of humor actually adapts quite well into an animated family comedy, and doesn't even really clash with the rest of what's going on. No, the problem with this movie, if I had to name one, is its constantly goal-shifting convoluted plot. I know that you enter a movie like this with certain lowered expectations about believability. What I'm saying is that Bee Movie still strains credibility even in that context. It starts as a (very) offbeat romance, turns into a sort of David and Goliath legal farce and ends as something else altogether. The audience is expected to adjust its desired outcome altogether too many times. Given that, it's still a fairly enjoyable ride.

Written April 17, 2008.

Saved!

2.5/4 stars

Teen comedies aren't known for creating three-dimensional, introspective portraits of characters; in fact it wouldn't be a stretch to say that the genre subsists on stereotypes. Surprisingly, the biggest strength of Saved! may be its well drawn cast of characters. Disappointingly, the film falls short of its own standards in this area. Considering that when the movie was concieved, pitched and advertised, ridiculous caricatures of Christians were probably the main selling point, the film does well at avoiding that temptation. It even ends on an optimistically ambiguous note regarding the existence of God, and rather than being a jaded entry in a tiresome culture war, it becomes a thoughtful portrayal of a loss and recovery of faith. But as fair as the movie is to Christians, it remains unfair in all the familiar ways to the truth of being in high school. After spending an hour setting up personalities, relationships, conflicts, the film gives us a disappointingly typical outcasts vs queen bee climax. And just once, can the boyfriend in one of these movies posess any attributes at all beyond being good looking, awkwardly charming and unrealistically tenacious? This film, almost universally awarded four stars by my friends, certainly could have been a lot worse. But if we're being honest here, it could also have been much better.

Written April 18, 2008.

A Lot Like Love

2/4 stars

The least literate script I've ever seen. None of the characters apparently have any interests or anything to say. Shows a fairly pessimistic view of humanity on the part of the writer, that he believes these hollow constructions could pass for human beings. I'd score it lower, only the movie isn't really painful to watch so much as dull and needless. Beyond the writing, it's okay, but is that really saying anything? The actors and the director are painting by numbers without making too much of a mess. Also, the movie is crammed with songs that deserve to be in better movies (well... the best of them do) and cue scenes that have nothing to do with what they express. Somebody probably guessed somewhere along the way that this was the only chance this movie had of achieving any emotional resonance whatsoever.

Written May 24, 2008.

Rounders

3/4 stars

Mol is bland, Malkovitch is over the top, Janssen is underused and Norton just disappears about halfway through the movie, never to be seen again. Still, Damon immerses us in the movie with the same blend of charisma and vulnerability that worked in Good Will Hunting, aided by some suitably confessional narration. The world that the film draws us into is seductively gritty, the storyline effective, and the overall result entirely watchable if not inspired.

Written June 12, 2008.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

4/4 stars

A near-perfect guy movie for the thoughtful, sensitive yet still undeniably masculine male. Writer/star Jason Segel triumphantly steals the romantic comedy from chick flick territory. And even if you don't care about any of that crap, the fact that it's falling-out-of-your-chair hilarious helps too.

Written June 12, 2008.

The Wedding Singer

3.5/4 stars

The problem with seeing The Wedding Singer about ten years late as I have done is that it's one of those movies that people like to quote at you, so I'm experiencing the disillusionment of discovering where some of my friends who I formerly thought were just clever actually get their material. Truthfully though, the movie is funny, can you blame them? Aside from that there's not much to say. I've stated in the past that Drew Barrymore is about the most charming leading woman you could ask for in this type of movie, and the soundtrack happened to fucking awesome (okay, I just really love Everyday I Write the Book). But it's nine and a half years too late for this review to tell anybody anything they didn't already know, making it... somewhat pointless.

Written June 29, 2008.

Get Smart

3/4 stars

An effective action/comedy that doesn't have to resort to insulting stupidity. May not justify repeated viewing, but then again, who knows, and it's a charming summer effort nonetheless. Plus... Bill Murray in a tree.

Written July 2, 2008.

Step Brothers

1.5/4 stars

I've decided that I can laugh uproariously at a movie and still end up thinking it's pretty bad.

Written July 31, 2008.

The Dark Knight

4/4 stars

When Spider-Man 2 came out, and in the years following, I've been one of many moviegoers to treat it as a guide on what the superhero film looks like at its best. Now, after my second viewing of The Dark Knight, there is no doubt left in my mind that Nolan's new film has supplanted the wall-crawler's second outing as the apogee of that genre. As it was with Raimi's Spider-Man series, the first installment existed to make way for the second, because an origin is an obligatory part of a superhero series, not because the best storytelling takes place there. Having reminded the audience of the already familiar characters and setting with the first movie, the second seems to be where the real work begins. Spider-Man 2 was the best at the time because we had never seen a truer attempt at a character-driven yet iconic superhero tale. The Dark Knight succeeds in many of the same places, through the synthesis of the most potent images and story elements that the source material has to offer. The film's influences will be appreciable to those familiar with them, particularly the graphic novels The Long Halloween and The Killing Joke, but also quite noticabley Michael Mann's exceptional film Heat, all of which are consulted, rather than copied, to create an entirely new story. But where Dark Knight surpasses the earlier film is in offering characters who are not just fully developed and faithful renditions of their comic book counterparts, but take on the role of mythic figures, battling to shape their world, as they were originally envisioned. This movie is a full-blown epic, with all the moral gravity and tragic poetry that such a title implies. The city of Gotham as delivered by Nolan is a living organism, and the actions of Batman, and The Joker (yes, Heath Ledger is excellent), and Harvey Dent and Jim Gordon carry weight and consequences therein. Seven Batman movies have been theatrically released in my lifetime, but the latest two have risen easily to the top of the pile. Christopher Nolan has saved the franchise from obsolescence and embarrassment, while intelligent and inspired films like The Dark Knight, the Spider-Man series and V for Vendetta continue to save the superhero genre from irrelevance.

Written July 21, 2008.

The X-Files: I Want to Believe

3/4 stars

I wrote of the first X-Files movie that it was enjoyable because it was basically just another episode of the television show, but with a big budget and amazing special effects. This one is enjoyable, despite the lack of those things, because it is just another episode, in movie form, six years after the show went off the air. I think the reason that reviews so far have been fairly negative is that people don't understand what the movie is supposed to be. This is a distinctly un-summer film. It is, at the same time, a movie that could almost only have been made under the X-Files brand. I was initially frustrated with the lack of a major ad campaign in support of this movie; my old TV fan instincts kicked in and it felt important to me that the movie have a huge opening and impressive box office performance. That seems not to have been among its creators' ambitions. The X-Files: I Want to Believe is more low key, a lean crime thriller, with a supernatural twist. The most interesting thing about it, and what makes it so uniquely X-Files, is how they've resisted the urge to make it big. In a universe where supernatural phenomena are already established, it's possible to portray such things without having to go over the top. The movie could do more, could've continued the show's mytharc plotline in spectacular fashion, but it's entirely competent at what it does do. The case itself, and its emotional repercussions on Mulder and Scully are fascinating by themselves. This second X-Files film isn't a big movie, but it is a good one.

Written July 27, 2008.

The Queen

4/4 stars

At this point it basically goes without saying that the performances in this movie are incredible. Mirren and Michael Sheen particularly stand out, but in fact the entirety of the relatively small cast is so perfect as to be nearly invisible. This, along with the most effective integration of archive news footage I've seen, makes the movie so absorbing one is tempted to take it as a represenation of reality. And of course, it is in some sense. The film examines the week following the death of Princess Diana, revealing the mourning of both a family and a nation. The realism and credibility that the film seems to bring to its portrayal of the events behind the scenes of a national crisis are quite impressive. I was reminded of The West Wing, the television series whose adeptness at that same task was one of its best qualities. This is the third film I have seen by Stephen Frears, and the second that I have found nearly perfect (High Fidelity is a classic to any music geek, 2002's Dirty Pretty Things didn't live up to its potential). The film is engrossing, it plays a subtle but intense conflict without spelling out to the audience what is at stake, allowing the humanity of the characters to take care of that. For the best film of 2006, I would probably choose the more ambitious, more sprawling, more flashy The Departed, but there is no mistaking that The Queen is a significant accomplishment.

Written August 12, 2008.

Manhattan

4/4 stars

It's easy to judge Woody Allen too harshly. He's known to some as one of cinema's most indulgent auteurs; he frequently plays himself (or a very similar persona) and many of his most lauded films are essentially autobiographical. Where he must be forgiven for this is in the honesty that such films produce. Manhattan is a naturalistically framed story in which the characters talk like real (albeit exceptionally well-read) people, get in and out of relationships like real people, and above all feel in all the ways that real people do. Allen constructed the movie from one scene after another of memorable conversations, in a form that seems to emulate the way we remember our own lives. The viewer is drawn in by the casual and candid relationship we are given to the events. At the same time, the film sometimes challenges us, the camera not showing us everything we wish to see, dialogue that we're a bit too far away to hear, musical cues used to create startling juxtapositions; cinematic discomfort being used to evoke the emotional discomfort of the situations. The script is aggressively literate, not only to suit Allen's intended audience, but in a way that seems intended to wear on you. Keeping up with all the names these characters drop gives you an indication of the stimulation, and also the vexation that knowing them would bring. Oddly enough, for a film called Manhattan, I didn't really feel that New York City was essential to the story that we get. It's presented beautifully, of course, but the drama takes place in restaurants, theaters and apartments, places that are universal. I think Allen fixates on cities because he associates them with a certain mood, a class of people. At one point in the film, Diane Keaton says "I'm from Philadelphia, we believe in God" and he replies that he doesn't know what she means by all that, but we can see, in this film as in Annie Hall that such statements are very much a part of his sensibility. In the end his avatar seems to retreat from the neurotic, analytical ethos that Allen has build around New York. Some will not relate to this outlook, or the desire to escape from it; but for those who do, Manhattan is rich and introspective filmic experience.

Written August 16, 2008.

Pineapple Express

2.5/4 stars

By some strange coincidence, I saw two movies this weekend that involve older men dating 17 year old girls. One was Pineapple Express, the other Woody Allen's 1979 film Manhattan. You could hardly be blamed for not wanting to consider the similarities between these two films, but they do share a certain honest quality in their dialogue and their treatment of relationships. This is the primary draw of Pineapple Express. Seth Rogen is quickly becoming one of my favorite comedic performers, and I suspect I'm not alone in this. As a writer, he's certainly very good at coming up with one liners for himself and crafting hilarious exchanges, both improvised and on paper. However, like the other prominent film that has Rogen in a writing credit, Superbad, Pineapple Express suffers from a rather nearsighted construction. While these movies get a lot of mileage out of joking around between their leads, they fall short whenever they try to be movies. The bigger setpieces, such as a car chase and a massive shootout are unsatisfying, and the arc of the film itself is meandering and lacks closure. You will laugh a lot in this movie, but unlike superior Apatow produced efforts like Knocked Up or Forgetting Sarah Marshall, you won't leave the theater satisfied that you saw something entirely worthwhile. There's something very cheap about the ending of Pineapple Express, the way various elements are left unresolved (like the aforementioned girlfriend), and the random, credibility straining manner in which others are resolved. Maybe other viewers will be less bothered by this than me, but you get the impression that it was thought that every important part of the movie could be improvised, and through some magic, the end result would be okay. I prefer a movie that knows where it's going, what it's doing, and can provide a why for the things that it shows us.

Written August 16, 2008.

introduction

In the movie True Romance, just after they first meet in a rundown movie theater, Alabama says to Clarence, "When I see a really good movie I really like to go out and get some pie, and talk about it. It's sort of tradition. Do you like to eat pie after you've seen a good movie?" He says yes, and who could blame him? After I see a movie, assuming it's made any kind of impact whatsoever, positive or negative, I share what I think is a fairly common instinct to discuss and analyze it, to characterize the reaction that it evoked and decide where it fits in the canon of all the other films I've seen. As a film buff and an aspiring screenwriter, I eventually decided to start taking this impulse a bit more seriously, and I've been habitually writing reviews of most of the movies I've seen for a few years now. Several of these reviews have been posted on another site, but I've decided that I want them to be more accessible than they were, as well as being able to write reviews on my own terms after having various problems with the other site. Anyway, so I'll be posting both new and old reviews here from now on. Enjoy.