6/10 - Oldboy is often cited as a masterpiece direct from South Korea. For me, it simply was not my thing. The violence was not too much for me, as is often the case. Though excessive in spots, Oldboy simply falls out of my range of enjoyment. As it stands, it is an entertaining ride with a disappointing conclusion that really lets the air of Park-Chan Wook's claustrophobic thriller.

Shot in a way that makes the viewer feel entriely claustrophobic alongside Oh Dae-Su (Choi Min-Sik), the film really does a great job capturing his anguish, loneliness, and torment, as he is locked up for 15 years for reasons unknown to him. The film's thrills continue as he meets the far too trusting Mi-do (Kang Hye-jung) and the mysterious Lee Woo-jin (Yoo Ji-tae), who is the reason he is locked up in the first place.

The fim's willingness to dive into shocking violence is a problem, namely the tongue sequence. It makes sense, but no thank you. Other than that, the acting is well shot and well choreographed, especially when Oh Dae-su fights the men in the compound. A masterfully shot sequence, it almost made me a believer. That scene in particular is not just well shot, but Chan-wook Park does a terrific job creating tension and thrills in that scene, as well as the rest of the way.

This is about where the noticeable positives stop for me, personally. My list of complaints is admittedly longer. Firstly, the beginning. Maybe I am dumb, but I barely realized it was the same guy at the beginning. I got what they were trying to do, but the beginning sequence of Oh Dae-su being very drunk and then winding up in this prison for 15 years was horrifically executed. It was incoherent and made no sense while watching it. I obviously figured out that was what happened at some point, but the film made no attempt to make it a coherent transition. Instead, it showed a drunk guy and then a guy locked up asking why he is being held with very little connection.

Additionally, the biggest complaint is the end. Oh Dae-su is held for 15 years because he saw Lee Joo-win have sex with his sister and then he told his friend who spread the news around the school. The sister killed herself as a result (oh wait, excuse me, she was dropped). That is why this happened. Even worse, Chan-wook Park then decided it would be fun if the film became absolute nonsense by having Oh Dae-su have sex with Mi-do who is his daughter. Brilliant twist really. How did he wind up doing this, you ask? Oh well Lee Joo-win, in his endless quest to get payback for his dead sister, had a woman hypnotize the two of them to put them in situations where they will fall in love. This is not a problem with coherence. I understood it. However, these explanations were less than satisfying. I was already torn on whether or not the overall tone and feel were up my alley, but the ending convinced me that Oldboy was simply not my thing. For me, the ending was not just unsatisfying, but outright dumb.

I get that everyone else loves Oldboy. That is fine. I did not hate it. I just would be hard pressed to say I like it. That said, the overwhelming praise will lead to me watching this one again later on. Though, it may be a while since it took me a while to watch it once to begin with since I was convinced it would not be my thing. Now that I have watched it, it seems that my initial impressions were correct. Though I loved the way it was shot and the action in the film is terrific, the incoherent beginning and awful conclusion is a major buzzkill. Sorry.



6/10 - Wonder Boys is the type of film that is difficult to discuss, simply because it elicits so few thoughts as you progress through the film. It is the kind of movie that is released and fades into obscurity, not just because it bombed financially, but simply because it failed to ever make an impression. Though it did not resonate too much with me, I do think that is a shame because there is a lot of good here.

Wonder Boys' biggest sin has to be stereotypical approach to its topics. The general narrative of a lost man finding his path with funny hijinx along the way and the with the help of a few crazy characters is screenwriting 101. Unfortunately, the film really fails to add anything new to the trope and thus, much of what it has to say falls on deaf ears simply because it feels extremely "been there, done that".

This said, this plot is so cliche because it is so effective. Most films that follow this path, if well-executed, can never be outright bad simply because they elicit so much positivity and just make you feel good. In essence, Wonder Boys is a crowd pleaser. For many, this will rank among their favorites simply because of the strong writing and the way in which the film has an indelible ability to bring a smile to your face. Hell, they kill a dog and it is hysterical! That is unheard of in film. The dog dying typically brings a dark cloud over the film, but this one makes it funny. A true accomplishment of the film's pitch black comedy.

The film is also blessed with good performances across the board. Frances McDormand and Katie Holmes turn in good performances, even if their characters are pretty one-dimensional. Robert Downey Jr. plays a good gay druggy, as expected. The only two characters with some real meat to their bones are Grady Tripp (Michael Douglas) and James Leer (Tobey Maguire). Douglas plays the grisled, unhappy, and aimless college professor very well and, though it is certainly not a role you expect to find him in, he demonstrates his considerable range. He does often play unhappy and adulterous characters, yes, but certainly not ones who have merely lost their path. No, his mid-life crisis characters often come with a dose of crazy attached to them. Here, he is the rock and the settled down adult, except he is simply feeling worthless. He finds his worth in the troubled James Leer. For me, Tobey Maguire is often hit-and-miss, eve in the same role. As the unhinged, brilliant, and deeply mentally ill Leer, however, Maguire is a wonder. With only slight emotion shown throughout, he is able to perfectly capture the inner feelings of Leer and bring them to light.

Good acting aside, the film's writing is a little on-the-nose at times, namely as Douglas spoon feeds the audience what the point of the movie actually was. If you did not figure out that Tripp and Leer needed one another and learned from each other, then director Curtis Hanson ensured he literally told you. I am never a fan of movies that simply do not think highly of their audience and Wonder Boys seems to fit the fill.

However, Wonder Boys is simply so pleasant, I cannot complain too much. Often pretty funny, moving, and quite engaging, the film is a true crowd pleaser that possesses a career-best performance from Tobey Maguire. Though the writing is typical, thin, and the dialogue is on-the-nose, Wonder Boys is a largely enjoyable and interesting look at a man finding his path with the help of someone who barely realizes there is a path.



8/10 - Dressed to Kill is a Hitchcock thriller directed by Brian De Palma. As such, the film features gratuitous shots of women showering (I am newish to De Palma, but between this and Carrie, does De Palma have a shower fetish or what?) and violent outcomes for its character. That said, if Hitchcock did not have to deal with censors, Dressed to Kill's level of nudity and violence could very well have been a film he directed. As it stands, De Palma channels his inner-Hitchcock with a spellbinding, twist-filled, and above all, thrilling exercise.

Taking a page straight out of Vertigo, De Palma nails voyeurism throughout this film. With repeated shots of people spying on each other and point of view shots of the same (plus a recording of spying on people), this film is wall-to-wall voyeurism. The use of binoculars to spy on Liz (Nancy Blake) certainly channels Rear Window. That said, Vertigo is clearly the biggest influence giving the voyeurism on display between Kate Miller (Angie Dickerson) and Warren Lockman (Ken Baker) in an art gallery. Lifted straight from Vertigo, this scene is a real highlight of the tension of the film, as well as a scene in which Pino Donaggio's score really shines.

The voyeurism continues on the subway as Liz keeps an eye out for the psychotic killer and the group of men who threatened to attack her. Though the stakes are higher in this scene than in the art gallery sequence, the tension is the same. That is really the brilliance of De Palma in this film. A scene in which a woman stalks a man she wants to sleep with is as tension-filled as a scene in which a woman tries to avoid men with bad intentions. In both scenes, De Palma flips between point of view shots from our "protagonist" (Kate and Liz, respectively) and close-ups of them walking, similar to the same shots in Vertigo of James Stewart. As in that film, the camera work in these scene is tremendous, though the camera work is the real star of this film.

As mentioned, I was a big fan of Donaggio's score, which is pitch perfect in the art gallery and again in the final dream sequence. Both scenes really leave you on edge, in no small part thanks to Donaggio's score, which really captures the moment and leaves you sitting on pins and needles. In that final sequence, the tension is really high. Starting off with a gratuitous shot of Nancy Blake showering (what is it about showers that does it for you, Brian?), this apparent dream sequence is dripping with tension and highlights one of my favorite parts of the film; mirrors and lighting. There is one shot earlier in the film of Dr. Robert Elliott (Michael Caine) leaning up against a wall and, thanks to a mirror, we see his reflection. Subtle foreshadowing to the film's conclusion, I am a real sucker for mirrors and De Palma used it to perfection in this one. Heck, the scene where Liz sees Bobbi in the elevator is only possible because of the mirror. The final sequence shows the same thing as Liz only realizes Bobbi is behind her due to a mirror. This reveal is absolutely chilling and, even if a dream, still incredibly effective at creating tension. Though it adds very little, I also loved the lighting. The emphasis on the shininess of the razor, the doorknob at the end, and the item in the medicine cabinet for some reason made me fall in love even more with this one. The success of this film are in the details and this is simply one of many.

Only real complaints are the blatant sexism and prejudice against transsexuals in the film. As a transsexual is the killer, the criticism is logical. That said, for me, these do not really factor heavily into my rating. Most films wind up being sexist and misunderstanding of transsexuals was rife at the time. Plus, the film does show a positive representation of transsexuals at the end and during the film as it shows them as normal people. Additionally, Bobbi is not the killer because of being a transsexual, but certainly due to a certain degree of split personality disorder.

As a whole, Dressed to Kill is an incredibly detailed and truly splendid thriller from Brian De Palma. Showing influence from Hitchcock, particularly Rear Window and Vertigo, the film is a champion of voyeurism and the effectiveness of mirrors in these types of films. Dressed to Kill is blessed with good acting, top-notch direction, a great score, and great cinematography. At every turn, the film thrills, entertains, and proves to be quite titillating.



6/10 - Battle Royale is a fine film. A compelling premise with clear influence on The Hunger Games, Battle Royale is a gruesome, action-packed film with some good takes on growing up, loss, and teenage love. That said, it is a film with chutzpah. Yes, I understand it kills teenagers for two hours in incredibly graphic ways, but it refuses to deviate too far from classic young adult material.

Compared to The Hunger Games, Battle Royale blows it away. I really hate The Hunger Games films, simply because if a paper bag and Liam Hemsworth were the last two actors on Earth, the paper bag would still win every Oscar. Plus, the film's unwillingness to show the true nastiness of society is really too bad for me. That said, while I hate the hair in that film, I do appreciate the theatrical nature of it. It really makes it that much more screwed up. Really, this is what I wanted from Battle Royale. It hints at it, but it is all too hush hush. We see the impacts on the teenagers, but not on the adults. I assume their parents could not be too happy, right? Unfortunately, we never get to see this element. Instead, it is a classic film aimed at teens in which all adults are bad and not to be trusted because they let you down. In a film that preaches understanding of teens, it could not be less concerned about extending that same courtesy to adults.

This said, the ending is really my biggest complaint. I really want one of these films to ditch the romantic element. Instead, both this and the later Hunger Games decide that their two lovers will survive in a message that "love triumphs all". This may be heartwarming, but annoyingly cliche. I want brutality. I came to watch a movie in which teenagers slaughter each other for survival. Give me what I show up for. Ultimately, I want a film with chutzpah and guts. A film that will leave its two lovers for last and one of them kills the other. Or, even better, no romance and a protagonist that his entirely against the whole Battle Royale program, but eventually opts to begin killing. Thus, becoming a part of the system they fought against. Personally, I feel like that is a better film and has a far more hopeless feeling that I think these films really lack. In this one, the predictable ending that could have been written by Stephanie Meyer and right at home in Twilight is really too bad. How can you kill kids all movie and show so much pathos from other characters losing their crushes/significant others, but not follow through with the "protagonists"?

Battle Royale is certainly action-packed. With good action sequences, it is no surprise to me that everyone is a bag fan of this one. However, I am simply not a big action guy at all. Thus, most of the bullets just get ignored by me for the most part. That said, when the film really goes for hand-to-hand combat and does not have that one guy just spraying bullets everywhere (and missing everyone, but Nakahura, of course), then the action is really much more appreciated.

I know that thus far, the review has largely been me complaining, but I guess that is just because everyone else loves the movie and I came away largely mixed. I did love the setting, the lack of needless exposition, and the general premise of the film. I just wish it was better and that I liked it more, personally. Overall, Battle Royale is a film beloved by many and I can certainly identify the reasons as to why, but it is simply not up my alley apparently. As it stands, the film is slightly above average in my books and works as an entertaining action flick that has a lot to say about growing up, loss, and teenage love.



8/10 - Am I the only one who cannot understand how this is a "comedy"? This is not pitch black. It is tragedy. I admit to laughing at times (such as the line "So you're saying that without Hitler we wouldn't exist?"), but as a whole, Storytelling is a heartbreaking tale. What that tale is truly about is diverse, as it feels like this film is simply about rejection and life as a whole. Life is unfair and senseless with Todd Solodnz having serious contempt for that harshness and the unlevel playing field we all face. A truly hollow viewing experience, Storytelling is a tough film to assess simply because it just leaves you feeling defeated and empty above all other feelings.

The theme of rejection is quite clear from the get go, in both the "fiction" and "non-fiction" sections of the film. Marcus (Leo Fitzpatrick) writes a story from the heart about feeling normal and not being a freak, in spite of having cerebral palsy. Despite this, his story is harshly criticized by his professor Mr. Scott (Robert Wisdom). As a result of this rejection, Marcus dumps his classmate girlfriend Vi (Selma Blair) who then goes on to having violent, rapey sex with Mr. Scott. When Vi tries to write about it, it is criticized as being unbelievable, sexist, and racist, despite her pleas that it is true. The same thing occurs in the non-fiction section as Toby Oxman (Paul Giammati) has been rejected in all of his endeavors. The same lies ahead for Scooby Livingston (Mark Webber), who is the focus of a documentary shot by Toby. A slacker with no goals as of yet, the documentary is played for Scooby's classmates who all laugh and mock the poor kid.

Now, what does Solodnz have to say about all of this rejection? Well, it is ultimately captured in the focus of Toby's documentary. An unhappy life for Toby has led to him wondering if the same path lies ahead for current students. Are they all doomed to be unhappy and turn out the same as himself? Well, Solodnz's film emphatically concludes to the affirmative. With a deep anger towards this harshness, Solodnz lashes out by demonizing Mr. Scott in the "fiction" section and killing Scooby's family in the "non-fiction" (note how Consuela kills them, who is looked down upon by the family). Both sets of characters resoundly reject those around them, are incredibly priviledged and prejudiced, while also being self-obsessed and narcissistic.

This ties into the unfairness of everything in the film. In the "fiction" section, Marcus is a kid trying to overcome his disease, yet faces obstacles at every turn and feels like a failure. Vi is raped, yet nobody believes her and writes her off as a racist. In the "non-fiction" section, Scooby is mocked for being lost. Toby is written off as a loser, even by the audience. Brady (Noah Fleiss) is a relatively nice kid, yet he winds up in a coma after a freak football accident. Consuela (Lupe Ontiveros), the Livingston's family housekeeper, is fired simply because the Livingston's youngest son Mikey (Jonathan Osser) is a privileged and spoiled jerk who seems unable to feel any empathy whatsoever. This, of course, comes after Consuela's son is executed after being on death row. Maybe he deserved it, but Consuela certainly did not. Throughout the film, Solodnz is obsessed with examining unfairness and this unlevel playing field through the eyes of the disenfranchised, physically disabled, and the misunderstood. In many ways, these mirror himself as his films have often been written off by critics or simply misunderstood. Fortunately, Solodnz will not lash out by killing them all, but they should take this film as his letter of contempt.

As a film, Storytelling is incredibly well-written, creating engaging characters left and right. Both the "fiction" and "non-fiction" section create characters that I want to explore more and almost regret that the film is so short. As it stands, however, the characters are well developed with little in the way of exposition. This is largely in part to Solodnz's ability to create deeply relatable characters and trust in his audience. He trusts us to get these people and we most certainly do at every turn.

The key to understanding Storytelling lies in Toby's documentary in my personal opinion. Many label this a comedy and Solodnz as "cruel" for mocking these characters. Yet, he is simply showcasing the contempt audiences have for these characters. He presents them in an unbiased manner and begs you to feel bad for them. Yet, all we can do is laugh. This is truly tragedy at its very finest as Storytelling leaves you hollow and empty as you watch these characters pushed down and left for dead at every turn without any hope for their futures. Scooby will fail out. Toby's film will fail. Consuela will never find steady work again at her age. Heartbreaking, taboo, and deeply misunderstood, Storytelling is a stirring look at rejection and the unfairness of society with Solodnz lashing out violently at both.

As a sat to write this review, I was lukewarm about the film. It was only through writing that I realized just how truly brilliant this work was and what Solodnz was able to accomplish right under my nose.



9/10 - A truly melancholy yet poignant experience, In the Mood for Love is a truly devastating look at those on the other side of infidelity. Yet, at the same, purely and subtly romantic. As a result, director Kar-Wai Wong's moving film touches on themes of adultery, marriage, and love, as these two people try to cope with the way in which their lives have been destroyed. Blessed with good cinematography, good acting, and a great score, In the Mood for Love is a wonderful work that really hits home.

After moving in next door to one another, Mr. Chow (Tony Leung) and Mrs. Chan (Maggie Cheung) discover that their spouses are having an affair with one another. What plays out is them imaging their spouses' spending time with one another, as well as them imagining confronting their adulterous partners. Unfortunately for them, their spouses heavy travel schedule prevents any of these interactions from actually taking place, thus leaving them in eternal limbo as they await their returns. As expected, the two fall in love and spend more and more time with one another, but repress their emotions to keep up appearances. By the film they are willing to move on their love, time has passed and they simply can no longer because together as life has brought them extenuating circumstances.

A decidedly melancholy film steeped in themes of respect and loneliness, In the Mood for Love only subtly pays off on its hinting at the main characters' love. Though Mr. Chow and Mrs. Chan certainly hit it off and love spending time with another, the film goes out of its way to showcase the two of them maintaining their purity and not becoming their spouses. Instead, they hold themselves back and keep on just being friends. Wong does great at capturing this element as the romantic tension and longing between the two shines through in large part to the camera work and acting.

In the Mood for Love is incredibly slowly paced, which allows for the full emotional impact of their trauma and regrets to really linger with this audience. Even more, this slow, methodic pacing almost becomes wholly melodic and poetic as Wong weaves his way through this relationship, the crumbling of their marriages, and their later attempts to reconnect but to simply be kept apart. In particular, the discussion of the old method of hiding secrets and then seeing Mr. Chow do exactly as he described while in the ruins of Cambodia is a truly moving and poetic ending to the film. Yet, incredibly subtle and restrained, as is the case with Wong's characters. Plus, this scene does a great job capturing larger topics in the process. it was not just our two protagonists whose lives changed, but also all of Hong Kong. As hinted to at the end, Hong Kong has changed dramatically since they met four years prior to the end of the film. Not only have their former landlady's moved out, but times have changed and people are moving on. The fact that Wong chose to end the film in Cambodian ruins is also attached to this element, considering it is a very visual representation of the way in which time moves on and leaves destruction, ruins, and memories in its wake. The camera work in this final sequence is particularly moving as it moves through these Cambodian ruins as Mr. Chow visits them.

Ultimately, Kar-Wai Wong's In the Mood for Love is a truly tragic exercise in heartbreak, repression, and loneliness. Though these two may love one another, they simply cannot allow themselves to express this in the conservative Hong Kong. If they did, it would be the end of them socially. Thus, they remain silent. Wong does a tremendous job capturing their chemistry even in silent moments and developing his characters, as well as their relationship. Wholly authentic in its portrayal of love and romance, In the Mood for Love is a film that may be very slow, but it is a truly melodic and poetic experience. Due to the circumstances, it also left me in ruins and "crept up on me". After I wrote this review and submitted it, I knew I had to go back and fix the rating. Somehow a 4/5 felt harsh when this film is a real wonder. How someone was able to so accurately capture love and its nuances is incredible. In the Mood for Love is a brilliant work in every facet.



3/10 - Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code is the film equivalent of the annoying kid that read a book and came to the conclusion that the Bible is all nonsense. From beginning to end, the storyline pokes all sorts of holes and comes to conclusions that could best be described as conspiracy theories, but then again, conspiracy theories often contain less mental gymnastics. I get that this is based on a novel that I have no desire to read, but regardless, it does not stop the film from being tedious, overlong, and self-important. That said, it does have an interesting and mysterious premise that Howard captures quite well as Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou go around the globe searching for the "Holy Grail".

With far too much exposition for one man to handle, The Da Vinci Code's biggest sin is not going against Church doctrine. Though I may be Christian, I am not Catholic. Thus, the church's beliefs are not my own. Instead, the film's biggest sin is undeniably the sheer amount of exposition. Often told through grainy flashback memories, the film tries to explain everything, but manages to explain absolutely nothing. it is incredible the number of questions I was left with. If Sophie (Tautou) is the last living descendant of Jesus Christ, would her brother not have also been a descendant of Christ? If so, why suggest the staging of the car accident and the cover-up over her? Why not just keep the family alive? Maybe I missed something, but Sophie being the last descendant of Christ feels far too fortunate to narratively make any sense. Also, why Robert Langdon (Hanks)? I get why Sophie's "grandfather" wanted his help, but I do not understand why the Church opted to frame Langdon for murders all over the place. He just studied religious symbols, who cares about him? Figured they would kill two birds with one stone or something?

I guess my questions drive home this point: the writing is terrible. The problems with the writing often can be found in the dialogue, which is incredibly clunky and far too on-the-nose. However, the problems can also be found in the story. I get that the thriller elements are there to make things interesting. While they succeed, they are all so cliche. With a story about revealing cover-ups regarding Jesus Christ, the film managed to pull out every contrivance to be found in the thriller genre and include it in a cliched two and a half hour film, right down to the conclusion. Though well executed and oddly stirring, the ending and Langdon's realization as to where the Mary Magdalene is, could not have been more cliche.

Essentially, the film relies of convenience at every turn. The film has a moment equivalent of Pawn Stars when Langdon just happens to know an expert on the Priory of Scion, Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen). More conveniently, Leigh also has a private plane to help Robert and Sophie escape from the police. Also, at the end, right before Leigh kills them both, in come the cops. How convenient. There are far more than I can think of, but I would be remiss without mentioning the worst. Police captain Fache (Jean Reno) is intent on catching Langdon because his Bishop told him that he is a murderer with a purely evil heart. Without any evidence or scene connecting things, Fache has seemingly learned the truth: the Bishop lied. What or who exactly clued this man into this fact? Was it divine intervention? Oh wait Jesus was not divine according to this film, so maybe not really any kind of miracle.

When it comes to The Da Vinci Code, there are many problems. The plot is outlandish and outright dumb. Though the scene with Langdon finding the "Holy Grail" is great, the rest is hogwash. People who believe in Bigfoot would laugh off many of the conclusions in this film. The way it tries to tie in Da Vinci as a method to make itself seem smarter is laughable at best. What, pray tell, does his art have to do with any of this nonsense? The film also tosses in thinkers and other historical scholars along the way as further evidence that Dan Brown apparently read a book and went to history class like the rest of us. Though its historical mentions can be interesting and informative, the conclusions it comes to using them are more than eyebrow raising. Even worse with these conclusions is that the film force feeds them to you and keeps shoveling in food. A few conclusions would have been enough, but instead, The Da Vinci Code is like a grandmother that assumes you are never full. Instead, you must keep eating long sections of wordy dialogue with nonsense about the paintings of Da Vinci, the lies told by the Church, and the truth behind the Crusades.

Though Howard's film is thrilling, its self-importance, superiority complex, and attempts to be profound are often too much to be anything but laughable. If it ditched the religious elements and nonsense conspiracies, all that would be left is a decent and cliched thriller that would, praise the heavens, be far, far shorter. Hell, keep all the conspiracies. Just stop telling me the plot and let me watch the damn movie. Please.



8/10 - A slow, sweet, and often times tragic film from director David Gordon Green, George Washington is a compelling slice of life film about a group of friends covering up a tragic mistake and their summer as a whole. Quite different from Green's later works, such as Pineapple Express, this down-to-Earth film is a pretty simply plotted film with absolutely stellar characters, writing, and acting.

Firstly, however, I have heard a lot of praise for the cinematography. This praise is certainly very fair. As with the rest of the film, it shows signs of its low-budget indie status, but cinematographer Tim Orr does a terrific job in this film. Though it looks low-budget and rough, it never looks amauterish. Instead, Orr moves the camera with confidence and with the skills of a true professional.

As for the writing, this is where the film really shines. With believable characters who also happen to be incredibly relatable, Green does a great job developing his characters and giving them appropriate responses to the challenges that arise throughout the film. No matter what happens, they all react in ways that are certainly within their character. While the film is named George Washington, I would not say that George Richardson is the only kid with any development. Instead, the whole cast of characters is given background without any exposition. Instead, it just shows you and trusts its audience to understand that this is who the character is and where they come from. Coming from the day and age in which exposition is king, George Washington is a true breath of fresh air in that regard.

That said, the voice-over can be a bit much and is the main detraction from an otherwise very good film. Often a little wordy, the voice-over is delivered by a 12-year old girl and sounds far deeper than any 12-year old I have ever met. Thus, an incredibly believable film outdoes itself a little bit with this element as it feels as if it is very much in contrast with all of the other positives of the film. Without the voice-over and attempted depth, George Washington could have been truly great.

Overall, though it shows signs of its low-budget, David Gordon Green's slice of life film George Washington is an often moving look at youth, growing up, death, and this summer that will live on it the memories of its character for the rest of time. Incredibly written with terrific characters and shockingly talented child actors, George Washington is a very good film.



8/10 - A good blend of tearjerking moments, comedy, and great drama, Philomena is the story of Philomena Lee (Judi Dench), an Irish woman who gave birth to a son out of wedlock. As a result, the nuns at her church took her child away and sold him, along with many others, to adoptive parents. Now on a quest to find her son with journalist Martin Sixsmith (Steve Coogan), Philomena is a truly affirmative, moving, and well-constructed true story.

Often times true stories can slack a bit in terms of pace and interest, simply because you can see the way in which the director is constrained and forced to stay to the story. Philomena certainly does not showcase any of this. Instead, director Stephen Frears ably handles this true story that is interesting in its own right, but he does a great job wringing the drama and emotion out of this. As a result, Philomena is not just a film that tells a story of a mother looking for her son. Instead, it is a universal tale of journey and discovery for both Philomena and Sixsmith and a film that has a heart. There is a heart and soul to this film as it passionately tells this tale of injustice.

With truly brilliant performances from Judi Dench and Steve Coogan, Philomena further convinces me that I need to see more of Steve Coogan. I have only seen him sporadically, but that is clearly not enough. Together, they have terrific chemistry and they work together to find Philomena's son and find out what happened to him after 50 years. Dench plays Philomena with incredible class and majesty, as is to be expected for a woman with such dignity and prowess. The scene in which Philomena forgives Sister Hildegard for all of her sins against Philomena is incredibly powerful. The way in which she can forgive someone who wronged her so much is something that we all could learn from. Dench plays the scene to perfection with incredible emotion, yet with equal strength.

The film does a great job not just making me fight back tears, but also dramatically. As the duo try to uncover the mystery, the film is packed to the brim with drama, furthered by the hurdles they must overcome in order to discover the truth. Though cliched in spots in this regard, Frears does a good job executing the cliches and still manages to make it damn near thrilling as they sort through the evidence and find her son. Above all, however, the film is truly emotional, particularly the ending and when Martin discovers the truth about Philomena's son. Frears does a terrific job capturing these moments, while his two leads do a great job capturing the power of those moments and their significance.

Though it may be written off as Oscar bait by some, Philomena is a terrifically well-executed film that is emotional, powerful, and truly dramatic. Telling a deeply compelling real life story, Philomena does its protagonists justice with a film that captures the essence of both of their journeys into the past and into themselves. As a whole, Philomena is a moving film blessed with great acting, directing, and strong dramatic writing.



9/10 - Directed by Krzysztof Kieslowski, Three Colors: Blue is a truly immaculate film. Visually stunning with a pitch perfect score, the opening film of Kieslowski's acclaimed Three Colors trilogy and first entry into his filmography is an utter marvel for the eyes, the senses, and the heart. Utilizing a sapphire look to the film to encapsulate the main theme of grief, the film tells the story of Julie (Juliette Binoche) grieving after the death of her husband and daughter. After initially shutting off the world, she learns to reopen her heart and move on after his death by returning to her generous and loving self. Open to a wide variety of interpretations, it is a tough task to try and put your finger on what this film is ultimately trying to say to you, but one thing is certain: it is brilliant.

With a beautiful score from Zbigniew Preisner, the music takes center stage in Three Colors: Blue with numerous scenes fading to black to allow the music to really hit some high notes before fading back in to continue the scene. There is even a sequence at the end where Kieslowski opts to have the camera go out of focus as Julie and Olivier (Benoit Regent) work on finishing the concerto written by Julie's late husband Patrice. A beautiful sequence of indescribable melody, the film's music really encapsulates the sheer beauty and wonder of this film. I am no music expert, but to say that the music in this film is beautiful and meaningful would be a terrific understatement.

The cinematography is beautiful, but then again, I am a sucker for any significant use of color as is displayed in this film. Often signifying depression, sadness, or simply grief, blue is used to perfection in this film. Though not every shot is draped in blue, certainly a significant portion of it is displaying blue to some degree. The way in which Kieslowski works in the color in seemingly mundane ways is brilliant and highlights the detailed and subtle nature of this masterpiece.

On that point, Three Colors: Blue is an incredibly detailed film that demands to be re-watched multiple times in order to not just pick-up on everything that Kieslowski is laying down, but to also try and come to some kind of determination as to what the film is telling you. For me, the story is about a woman grieving and learning how to deal with that grief. After initially destroying everything that meant something to her old life and liberating herself from that weight, she learns that the past cannot be escaped. Instead, by embracing her past and letting herself move past the pain, she will liberate herself from it. Rather than running, she can stand still and move past her immense grief. That said, maybe I am way off.

Overall, Three Colors: Blue practically never puts a foot wrong. Impeccably crafted with a wonderous score, beautiful visuals, and incredible heart, Three Colors: Blue is a moving, stirring, and passionately told story about loss, grief, and liberating yourself from that grief.



8/10 - I...what. Coherence is a mindbending science fiction film that will toss your brain for loops as more and more absurd things keep occuring and are to be expected. When things keep progressing and getting worse, it becomes even more and mindbending and now my brain hurts. Coherence turned my mind into mush. Yet, it is oddly coherent and makes sense. Even if it is beyond explanation, it never leaves the grasp of director James Ward Byrkit. Instead, it is an audacious directorial debut for Byrkit that should hopefully propel him to handling bigger and, ideally, even more original films.

Incredibly original, it is hard to think of a comparison for Coherence. Some have cited the influence of The Twilight Zone and from what I have heard about that show, it probably makes sense. However, in terms of film, Coherence largely stands alone. Showing the events of a dinner party during the passing of a comet, Coherence is a film that really messes with your mind from beginning to end and forces you to keep up with it. Fortunately, Byrkit avoids any unnecessary exposition, which really helps to add to the atmosphere. This confused and lost party and their fear is matched by the audience as we try to piece things along with them. Byrkit could have lost their confusion if he kept stopping to explain everything. Instead, he pushes the pedal to the metal and plunges forward.

Featuring a largely unknown cast, Coherence is not necessarily a film about its characters. That said, the acting across the board is solid. Plus, the writing of the characters is solid. Nothing extraordinary, nor are they incredibly deep, but their pasts and their stories are important as the film progresses. For them, it is the key to knowing where and who they are.

More than anything, Coherence shows serious ambition. For this to be Byrkit's debut is an absolute wonder. It is not perfect by any means and probably gets too caught up in philosophy and quantum physics to be truly accessible or perfect. That said, a more experienced director would have problems keeping this one under wraps and having it somehow stay coherent. Instead, many would let the film got bogged down within itself and make no sense in the end. For Byrkit, however, things remain oddly linear. Who we are watching is unbeknownst to us, yet everything is the same and the viewer is able to follow the plot without nary a hitch. As Byrkit adds more and more layers to this film, things remain within our grasp and the film never feels like it is too much. It never feels silly. Instead, this air of paranoia and confusion runs rampant and truly arrests the viewer.

Showcasing serious potential for James Ward Byrkit in the director's chair, this mindbending film is a terrifying, atmospheric, somehow coherent, and truly original science fiction film. It is a rarity nowadays to say that, but it is the absolute truth. In creating this original film, Byrkit was incredibly ambitious and trusting of his audience to follow him wherever he opted to go. The end result is a truly engrossing experience that - for lovers of science fiction - will pay off in spades.



7/10 - Dripping with gooey 80s action movie goodness, Batman features Jack Nicholson unleashing his crazy on the world as the Joker. While the modern day films have decided that doom, gloom, and Henry Cavill brooding, are the ways to make a successful Batman movie, Tim Burton's version embraces the crazy. As with all Burton films, it can be wildly over-the-top at times, but never ceases to entertain as Batman (Michael Keaton) squares off with the Joker and has sex with Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger). Go get 'em, champ.

Far more entertaining than Zack Snyder's slop, Tim Burton ensures that in portraying the Joker's madness, he never loses sight of the key to all action: FUN. And boy oh boy is this one fun. Gloriously 1980s in its approach to action and fight sequences, the film's special effects and choreography may be a bit stilted and unseemly by today's standards, but were more than good for the time. Plus, they feel very in line with the comic books. From the set pieces to the costumes to the dialogue, Tim Burton's Batman feels like a comic book and this is why the film is ultimately so fun. It knows none of it is too serious, so it has fun with an outrageous premise, plot, and scenarios, as it knows what it is: a summer blockbuster adapted from a comic book that is made to please. This, of course, is not to imply it is not dark. It is far darker than, say, Marvel movies nowadays. However, it stops well short of the grim nature of the new DC adaptations.

Michael Keaton does a very good job in the lead role as Bruce Wayne/Batman, but the real star is Jack Nicholson. Crazy Jack rears his head yet again and has a blast with the absolutely nutso Joker/Jack Napier. From hardcore gangster to gleeful murderer, Nicholson does a killer job capturing the Joker and bringing him to life. He has been upstaged in more recent times by Heath Ledger, but this does nothing to diminish Nicholson's turn as the famed comic book villain. The costume design of the Joker is also stellar. The same goes for Batman with both of their "outfits" being well crafted and, honestly, how I often view the characters. Along a similar line, the production design is also killer. The scene in which the Batplane rains hellfire on the Joker and the scene on the cathedral both highlight this look. Not cartoonish, but decidedly comic book, which is perfect for this type of film.

With solid dialogue, fun action, a compelling plot that does not pertain to blowing up planet Earth (oh boy a throwback to the good old days), and good acting, Tim Burton's Batman features all of the wackiness one might expect from a Burton film (especially in the portrayal of the Joker), but is simply an incredibly well done comic book film that captures the fun, atmosphere, and look of a comic book.



9/10 - Guillermo del Toro has always had a flair for the fantastical and that was ever on display in his directorial debut, Cronos. A vampire film about an unsuspecting man who discovers a device that will give him eternal life, Cronos is a film with considerable heart, but also a terrific atmosphere, special effects, and a knack for making you feel unsettled. Of his works that I have seen, del Toro makes horror-esque films and often dabbled on the outskirts of the horror genre. Cronos is the most horror of any of them, but it is not the type to leave you scared and afraid to turn off the lights. Instead, it is the type of horror film that lingers in the air and in the mind.

With a compelling premise and well thought out mythology behind this mysterious cronos device, Guillermo del Toro creates a sense of mystery that quickly turns into dread as you discover what secrets this device holds. Creating this stiff, atmospheric tension, del Toro's debut never produces outright scares, but it does create significant tension. As Jesus Gris (Federico Luppi) begins to explore the device and transform before our eyes, the film is incredibly tense and retains this sense of mystery, as the film's mythology and explanation of events is ever evolving as we learn alongside Jesus what this device is truly capable of. The unique backstory aside, however, the film does largely stick to typical vampire genre tropes when it comes to the daily life of a vampire. However, del Toro executes these tropes very well and makes them feel fresh and new, in large part thanks to the backstory.

In terms of the writing, it is typical del Toro fare. Smart and well crafted characters who are very well developed and relatable. Particularly, del Toro manages to wring significant pathos out of this film, particularly when it comes to the relationships between Jesus and his wife and his granddaughter. Truly moving, this is the human core to all of del Toro's fantastical films and, as he will later do to perfection in Pan's Labyrinth, he executes it flawlessly. This is not some hollow vampire film. Instead, it is one with a heart and soul, which is always appreciated.

The film's special effects are another one of its major strengths, namely when Jesus is becoming a vampire. The decaying flesh, the ripping of dead flesh, and the full transformation, are really impressive. This is make-up special effects at their very finest and given the film's release date, this work is thoroughly impressive. How they managed to make them look this believable and never silly is a true accomplishment.

Overall, Cronos is a terrific film that showcases the skill Guillermo del Toro already possessed at the time of his debut, as well as hinted at even better things for the director. With a consistently tense and mysterious atmosphere, Cronos is a vampire film that strikes its viewers in the heart with its tension, unsettling events, and emotion.



5/10 - Defiance is a solid action film about a few unsung heroes of the Holocaust that helped to save thousands of Jews through their courageous acts. Starring Daniel Craig, Liev Schreiber, and Jamie Bell, as brothers who help to save the lives of their fellow Jews by forming a forest community and then vigorously protecting that community, the film is packed with action, motivational one-liners, and yet devoid of heart.

After Edward Zwick's terrific handling of other action films (Glory, The Last Samurai, Blood Diamond), I had high hopes for Defiance, in spite of the mixed reviews. As it stands, it is nothing but middling. The action is well shot and incredibly tense. Showcasing the isolation and desperation of their situation, the forest always proves to be a terrific staging area cinematically for the battle sequences. It adds a lair of confusion and disorientation that Zwick captures very well in these battles as they struggle to try and locate the enemy and the enemy struggles to locate them. Above all, the action sequences pack the biggest emotional punch of the film with the bravery and courageness on display and the sheer gravity of the situation in which they find themselves.

That said, beyond the action, there is not much here for me to chew on. The acting is hit-and-miss at best. I love Mia Wasikowska, but her supporting turn was painful. Hearing her cry gave me an ulcer. Liev Schreiber felt deeply insincere with every word he spoke. The only ones with any sort of passion were Daniel Craig and Jamie Bell. Alexa Davalos was solid, but certainly not anything special.

The writing, similarly, is hit-and-miss. I do feel as though the actors struggled with this writing that seemed to lack any punch whatsoever. For such an emotional story that is captured in the battles, the writing is simply sub-par. Every line just feels over-written and too much. The only lines with any real power come from Jamie Bell towards the end with the classic action movie motivational speech, except it actually works and truly gave me chills. Otherwise, however, the writing just felt and truly uninspired.

Finally, the atrocities committed by the Russians and even the Bielskis felt completely glossed over. Their killing was justified simply because they had been wronged and were on the path of vengeance. Despite their faults, the film hoists them up on its shoulders and elevates them to the status of Moses and other Jewish heroes in the Bible. For me, this feels a little much. They did certainly save lives and commit acts of bravery, but this does not make them perfect. It felt as if Zwick was simply uncomfortable criticizing his protagonists, which is really a shame since the film would have benefited from the more balanced coverage.

As a whole, Defiance is a solid action flick, but it lacks heart and emotion, which is inexcusable for a film with this premise. The acting and writing are both incredibly slack and the characterization is bordering on deification. That said, it certainly does entertain and provide some very well shot action sequences that capture the fear and tension of the situation.



8/10 - A thoroughly flawed film, The Light Between Oceans is no doubt the least of Derek Cianfrance's first three mainstream efforts. Overlong with a plot that takes a bit too long to get to the good bits and the tearjerking, The Light Between Oceans receives such high marks for me for one reason: the cinematography. In my ever-so-humble opinion, all of the film's problems are reduced to ash when compared to the everlasting, remarkable beauty of the film. For me, it is easily one of the most beautifully shot films of all-time. Without question. Where it ranks amongst films in terms of cinematography is debatable, but this film is not just eye candy. It is an eye buffet.

The film's plot has to be its weakest element alongside its pacing. A little slow and a little too manipulative at times, The Light Between Oceans keeps shoving melodrama at you and expects you to cry. When it fails, it shoves another handful in your face and shows discontent when you do not begin to bawl. That said, it does manage to get you a few times, especially with the love between Tom (Michael Fassbender) and Isabel (Alicia Vikander), as well as in scenes between Isabel and Lucy, These scenes really tug on the heartstrings and are effective at their goal. In particular, the final letter from Tom to Isabel, as well as the one from Isabel to Lucy really knock you on the ground in fits of crying. This is largely in part to the strong characterization of the major players, as well as the sensual chemistry between Fassbender and Vikander. They just worked together very well and the film benefits tremendously from their irresistible chemistry.

However, as hinted to before, the film takes a little too long to get into things. It lays the groundwork very well, but some better pacing could have helped out this issue. It just felt like the final 3/4's were dedicated to the actual drama of the film. Before that, the first act just kept chugging along and developing the love between Tom and Isabel. While it is a very well developed love story - not so much romance, but certainly love - it is simply unbalanced. It needs more the drama and less of the melo.

Now, pushing those issues aside, the cinematography made me want to run around the theater shouting, "F*** YES". I had to scrape my jaw off the ground multiple times with the beauty of the cinematography and I am not just talking about the beautiful aerial shots of the water. Whether it was cliffs, a shot in the distance from the lighthouse, a shot of the sunset, or shots of the waves crashing ashore, those shots are easily identified as being beautiful. These shots do not set it apart. Instead, what sets it apart are scenes such as the one in which Lucy goes missing. While the scene may be a little filler in the film to a degree, there is no way it could be cut because of the shot of the search party with flashlights in the dark. Brilliantly framed and truly arresting, the cinematography of that scene in particular was so perfect it caused me physical pain. As an overall, the film often takes the feeling of an old-time picture with a goldish hue giving the film the appropriate period look and almost a dose of nostalgia for the 1920s. This goldish hue is truly gorgeous and really blends perfectly with the aforementioned shots of the ocean. Together, all of these wind up producing a truly arresting and visually immaculate film. If this one does not get serious nominations for Best Cinematography, the film gods should blind all voters because they are not using their eyes for their intended purpose.

As a whole, The Light Between Oceans is flawed. A hit-and-miss tearjerker, it is certainly overlong and a little manipulative. That said, I really could care less. The cinematography is not just a 10/10. It is a 500/10. It is that good. Not since I watched Days of Heaven or The New World by Terence Malick have I been this awe struck by the cinematography of a film. There are times when I obviously find it beautiful, but nothing like this. The Light Between Oceans, from grand sweeping shots over the ocean to shots in the town to the slight gold filter on the film, is truly a sight to behold.