Login

BasedMinkus · 01-09-2017, 09:36 PM

<a href='index.php?showuser=3' rel='nofollow' alt='profile link' class='user-tagged mgroup-50'>Spangle</a>

Just saw your rating/review for White Girl.

Mah dude! I really liked the acting from Morgan Saylor. She was stellar

Also I just finished watching Nocturnal Animal. I thought it was terribly average.

Spangle · 01-10-2017, 12:09 AM

Quote:Originally posted by BasedMinkus@Jan 9 2017, 08:36 PM
<a href='index.php?showuser=3' rel='nofollow' alt='profile link' class='user-tagged mgroup-50'>Spangle</a>

Just saw your rating/review for White Girl.

Mah dude! I really liked the acting from Morgan Saylor. She was stellar

Also I just finished watching Nocturnal Animal. I thought it was terribly average.

I never like movies with a protagonist that unlikable usually, but I really dug White Girl. Never expected it. Saylor was tremendous.

I guess I liked Nocturnal Animals a little more, but it's definitely disappointing. After A Single Man, I expected more from Tom Ford.

BasedMinkus · 01-10-2017, 12:11 AM

Quote:Originally posted by Spangle@Jan 9 2017, 08:09 PM

I never like movies with a protagonist that unlikable usually, but I really dug White Girl. Never expected it. Saylor was tremendous.

I guess I liked Nocturnal Animals a little more, but it's definitely disappointing. After A Single Man, I expected more from Tom Ford.

The movie was good dont get me wrong but I feel like it is undeserving of award buzz

Spangle · 01-10-2017, 12:13 AM

Quote:Originally posted by BasedMinkus@Jan 9 2017, 11:11 PM

The movie was good dont get me wrong but I feel like it is undeserving of award buzz

I agree.

http://letterboxd.com/kjones77/list/2016-ranked/

As this list shows, it's only my 31st best film of the year. The acting is terrific. Taylor-Johnson deserves the buzz. Shannon deserves the buzz. The film looks terrific, love Ford's slick style and cinematography. The plot just isn't that good.

BasedMinkus · 01-10-2017, 12:15 AM

Quote:Originally posted by Spangle@Jan 9 2017, 08:13 PM

I agree.

http://letterboxd.com/kjones77/list/2016-ranked/

As this list shows, it's only my 31st best film of the year. The acting is terrific. Taylor-Johnson deserves the buzz. Shannon deserves the buzz. The film looks terrific, love Ford's slick style and cinematography. The plot just isn't that good.

Oh I wholeheartedly agree that Taylor-Johnson was great. Best part of the film tbh aside from the set pieces.

I also watched a movie called Coin Heist today (Netflix original)

It is like if The Breakfast Club was about four kids with no heart, no soul, no character development and are a part of the dumbest storyline ever.

Spangle · 01-10-2017, 12:28 AM

Quote:Originally posted by BasedMinkus@Jan 9 2017, 11:15 PM

Oh I wholeheartedly agree that Taylor-Johnson was great. Best part of the film tbh aside from the set pieces.

I also watched a movie called Coin Heist today (Netflix original)

It is like if The Breakfast Club was about four kids with no heart, no soul, no character development and are a part of the dumbest storyline ever.

I don't get why Netflix is obsessed with releasing bad original movies. They have had a few good ones (Beasts of No Nation, Siege of Jadotville is solid, and I've heard good things about ARQ and Barry), but they just suck at making good films. The 2017 lineup does seem promising though.

-Bright (directed by David Ayer and starring Will Smith, Joel Edgerton, Noomi Rapace, and Edgar Ramirez)
-War Machine (directed by David Michod and starring Brad Pitt, Anthony Michael Hall, Topher Grace, Will Poulter, and Tilda Swinton)
-I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore (directed by Macon Blair and starring Melanie Lynskey and Elijah Wood)
-Our Souls at Night (directed by Ritesh Batra and starring Robert Redford and Jane Fonda)
-Mute (directed by Duncan Jones and starring Alexander Skarsgard, Paul Rudd, and Justin Theroux)
-A Futile and Stupid Gesture (directed by David Wain and starring Will Forte and Domhnall Gleeson)
-Okja (directed by Bong Joon-ho and starring Korean actor, Tilda Swinton, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Paul Dano)
-Gerald's Game (directed by Mike Flanagan and starring Carla Gugino)
-First They Killed My Father (directed by Angelina Jolie)
-Sand Castle (directed by Fernando Coimbra and starring Nicholas Hoult, Henry Cavill, and Logan Marshall-Green)
-The Discovery (directed by Charlie McDowell and starring Jason Segel, Rooney Mara, Robert Redford, and Jesse Plemons)

***Hallsy*** · 01-10-2017, 12:35 AM

Pumped for Mute tbh.

For 2017, Dunkrik gunna be the best War Movie ever made. Saw the 5 min preview or wtv in front of rogue one. That shit was intense.

Spangle · 01-10-2017, 12:42 AM

Quote:Originally posted by ThatDamnMcJesus@Jan 9 2017, 11:35 PM
Pumped for Mute tbh.

For 2017, Dunkrik gunna be the best War Movie ever made. Saw the 5 min preview or wtv in front of rogue one. That shit was intense.

Same and I agree Dunkirk will be good, but probably not the best war movie ever haha.

The Lost City of Z, Logan Lucky, The Shape of Water, A Ghost Story, Under the Silver Lake, The Voyeur's Motel, The Snowman, Wind River, Mother, and Paul Thomas Anderson's fashion film are probably my top ten most anticipated.

***Hallsy*** · 01-10-2017, 12:51 AM

Quote:Originally posted by Spangle@Jan 9 2017, 10:42 PM

Same and I agree Dunkirk will be good, but probably not the best war movie ever haha.

The Lost City of Z, Logan Lucky, The Shape of Water, A Ghost Story, Under the Silver Lake, The Voyeur's Motel, The Snowman, Wind River, Mother, and Paul Thomas Anderson's fashion film are probably my top ten most anticipated.

tbh I thought Dunkirk was gunna be meh. but after seeing that clip i was like holy fack not even mad that that spoiled a decent chunk of the film.

I am not even a nolan fan either.

bana · 01-10-2017, 12:59 AM

Blair Witch (new one) and it sucked dick.

Allegiant · 01-10-2017, 06:08 PM

Dunkirk is still one of the big puzzles to historians who debate all the time as to why the Germans decided to bomb the British and not actually roll in with their armoured division, so I'm interested to see if the movie has any take on this.

Spangle · 01-15-2017, 02:18 PM

4/10 - A largely ineffectual and cliched biographical crime film, Veronica Guerin is simply not a very good film. At times manipulative and always a poor telling of a compelling real life story, the film fails to create intrigue or pathos throughout due to odd direction from Joel Schumacher. With the film lacking the necessary touch to actually work, Veronica Guerin is doomed from the start to fail. The writing also lets the film down, refusing to elevate beyond the direction and actually explore the characters of Veronica Guerin. For such a cliched person fighting evil type of film, it never explores its character and shows what makes her tick beyond cliched scenes that make her seem like 1000+ different movie characters. However, it would be wrong to say that Cate Blanchett is anything less than great, as usual. She is given practically nothing to chew on, but she knocks it out of the park anyways.

The biggest problem here is the story. Relying upon cliches - the gun shot sequence, any family scene, Guerin facing hatred from citizens, opposition from her paper/government, etc. - the film never argues its case for existing. I have seen this film before and director Joel Schumacher never tells me why it is necessary to watch it again. Had this been a documentary, it could have been far more compelling, but it feels restrained by the biopic formula and Schumacher tries to cram the square-shaped story into the round-shaped biopic formula hole. As a result, the film skims through the story, scenes smash into one another through bad editing, and the film lacks flow as a whole. It is as if Schumacher tried to check off a list of biopic "must haves" while making this film. Thus, it is largely devoid of tension or intrigue, even if its real life story seems compelling on the surface.

Through this slipshod filmmaking process, the story's interest is wrung out of it and discarded in favor of emotional manipulation. With scenes of kids doing drugs, out of place torture scenes, abuse, threats against kids, and moments of family telling Veronica to stop, the film tries to get you to feel bad. Even if it the story is true, it never works. It, instead, felt manipulative in how Schumacher tried to create emotion out of thin instead of putting in the time and effort to create characters worth watching. The beginning and ending show this kind of manipulation where Schumacher uses on-screen text and a closing narration in order to skip through pieces of the story and streamline the movie. It ultimately feels incredibly lazy and poorly structured. Rarely are we given the chance to see her write and put things together. Instead, she is handed information through conversations with John Traynor (Ciaran Hinds) and told to stop writing and go to bed by her husband (Barry Barnes). Inevitably, she follows up this request by asking where her kid is, but he is never around or already in bed. This is actually the only character development we get for Veronica: she is a horrible mother who puts her life in danger against her family's wishes and treats her family like utter garbage (see: scene where she flips through the tv in the hospital and ignores her worried husband). Roger Ebert was correct to call her character "egocentric", in spite what the film tries to do by calling her a martyr. This really speaks to the horrible character development as the film focuses far more in on a negative quality of Guerin and seems to demonize her, even though it clearly wishes for us to root for her.

Acting-wise, the film is well done, however. Blanchett is tremendous as the feisty, driven, and horrible mother, Veronica Guerin. As always, she brings power and grace to the role with a great Irish accent. Around her are solid performances, namely Ciaran Hinds. As a drug dealer who is a "small player", Hinds brings a good performance to the table that, alongside Blanchett, is far better than the film itself. Otherwise, the performances are largely nondescript, but hardly bad either. They are simply not noteworthy. In a cameo, Colin Farrell is oddly enjoyable and entirely out of place and distracting. Though his character made me laugh, he served no purpose and it seemed weird to give such a big actor a cameo role in a serious film.

Dull, bland, and cliched, Veronica Guerin is not a good film. Though Cate Blanchett prevents it from being bad, poor characterization, bad editing, and terrible direction, leave the film struggling for air. Joel Schumacher is a capable director at times, such as with A Time to Kill, but his direction does not work here. Instead of intriguing and heartbreaking, Veronica Guerin is boring and manipulative.

7/10 - The final film from legendary director Robert Altman, A Prairie Home Companion is a funny, smart, and compelling film. A suitable conclusion to an incredible career, A Prairie Home Companion blends music and comedy brilliantly, while working in contemplation on death that coincides with the end of a radio variety show. Based on the real life show that is still on the air, A Prairie Home Companion is about a long running weekly variety radio show that is set to be cancelled after the radio station was sold. Starring an ensemble cast, A Prairie Home Companion just feels oddly far too slight to have a lasting impact, but is still a worthy addition to Altman's extensive filmography.

Starring Garrison Keillor, Meryl Streep, Lily Tomlin, Lindsay Lohan, Woody Harrelson, John C. Reilly, Tommy Lee Jones, Kevin Kline, Virginia Madsen, Tommy Lee Jones, L.Q. Jones, Tim Russell, and Maya Rudolph, the film's greatest asset is its actors. With a star studded cast, the film is blessed with a wealth of terrific performances. As a private investigator who runs security for the show, Kevin Kline appears as Guy Noir. A part of the real life show, Guy Noir is an homage to film noir detectives and Kline knocks the role out of the part. From the great opening with Kline delivering a voice over akin to a 1940s film noir, the film opens with a roar. Accented with noir lighting on a dark night and a raspy delivery from Kline, the film made me realize I desperately need to find a neo-noir film with Kevin Kline. Alongside Kline, Meryl Streep turns in a terrifically great performance as Yolanda Johnson, one half of a singing sister duo. With a great voice and typically adept performance, Streep is a great almost calming presence next to her sister, portrayed by Lily Tomlin. With Tomlin playing a more boisterous sister, Streep's calm demeanor is a great anchor in scenes between the two. Woody Harrelson and John C. Reilly are great as a cowboy singing duo with gruff, funny deliveries both on and off stage. The duo are both capable singers and adept comics with good delivery and timing throughout. Garrison Keillor and Lindsay Lohan also turn in great performances here, rounding a tremendous cast.

The second strength of this film is the music. Well-written and well performed, the music is a bit more country (hello Nashville) and is balanced between beautiful hymn-like music, straight up country, and comedic songs. Together, they really flow into one another with the actors all more than capable of hitting the right notes on stage. In particular, Streep is phenomenal in all of her songs and finds great chemistry in her duets with Tomlin. Garrison Keillor surprised me with his great voice in singing advertisements for the show, which almost become a running joke throughout with how often they come up. The music is all incredibly composed and really hits a lovely nostalgic note in how it honors the past of the show, the characters' lives, and country music as a whole. This really lends well to the ruminations on death ushered into the film by the angel Asphodel (Virginia Madsen). An angel sent by God to bring people to heaven or bring them simple comforts, Asphodel appears on the set and, though she does bring death, more symbolically stands out as the death of the show. Even as the characters hold out hope for the show to continue, her constant presence shows that this is unlikely to occur. It also forces the characters to face their own morality and come to grips with the fact that the past is the past and can no longer be a part of your present. It is best to let go (finding new jobs, doing eulogies, handing over power of attorney) than it is to hang on for too long and miss your time. The music really captures this note being both nostalgic and somber, but always incredibly pleasant to listen to during the film.

Yet, A Prairie Home Companion is oddly slight. Focusing solely on the final show, the film can become a bit tedious and repetitive during its slightly over 90 minute run time. While the characters are fun and engaging, the film is never as fun as it seems it should be. It is almost as if there is an inside joke that the audience is not privy to, which keeps us at an arm's length from the film. This is ultimately the film's biggest hindrance and likely the source of why the film received more mixed reviews from audience members as opposed to critics. It just does not feel as if every piece is there, which hurts the overall product. The ending certainly contributes to this with nothing but a quick voice over from Guy Noir tying the end of the show to the scene at the diner, which lacks flow.

With great performances, music, and a lush brown hue to the entire proceedings, A Prairie Home Companion is a funny, compelling, and occasionally odd film from Robert Altman. The last film of his career, it feels as though Altman knew it was time and created a film to bring comfort to those who loved his work. Though the final scene does not work as well hoped due to flow issues, it does feel as though Asphodel is coming for Altman and, well, that is just fine because he was ready to go. Essentially, A Prairie Home Companion - while not a great film - is a love letter to show business and Altman's farewell to those who loved his works.

8/10 - Set in a Spanish orphanage with the backdrop of the Spanish Civil War, The Devil's Backbone is very much a Guillermo del Toro film. Combining the destruction of innocence as a result of violence and abandonment with a political allegory regarding the Civil War, del Toro knows how to make a film. Billed as a horror film, The Devil's Backbone takes yet another page of the del Toro playbook by using a creepy atmosphere and elements of horror (such as ghosts) to tell a story that is not intended to scare you. Akin to later works such as Pan's Labyrinth, Crimson Peak, or The Orphange (which he produced), The Devil's Backbone explores larger topics through the use of this atmosphere and things often used in horror films. Here, del Toro comments on the Spanish Civil War. With strict and cruel leaders in charge, the abandoned children are on their own with limited movement and food. Yet, they are able to use their numbers, determination, and minds to overcome their oppressors.

With a creepy atmosphere, del Toro is able to create a film that plays on childish fears and misunderstandings. Largely told through Carlos (Fernando Tielve), a newly orphaned child, the film features a childlike sense of wonder and confusion at his newfound living situation. This confusion leads to fear and incredible tension that the film is able to utilize in introducing its ghost. With a good build-up with multiple bumps in the night, the film's horror elements work well, even if the film itself is never overtly scary. Had this not been a del Toro film, I would have been on pins and needles expecting a malevolent being to be haunting this orphanage. This is certainly a credit to him and the atmosphere he is able to conjure up in this film. The ghost itself has great special effects and looks the part. He adds a mystery element to this film as you begin to wonder how he came to be, but as it typical for del Toro, the explanation involves a great atrocity that had gone under-the-radar and been forgotten.

Politically, The Devil's Backbone finds its greatest success. Creating a parallel between the struggles of the orphans and the pains of the Spaniards under Franco, the film highlights the authoritarian nature of Franco through the oppression of the children. Abandoned and left to fend for themselves, Jacinto (Eduardo Noriega) is an intimidating figure of the children. Having injured Carlos and willing to commit atrocities in the name of gold, Jacinto is a man who was once an orphan, but has become a truly evil man. Representing Franco while the kids represent the Spaniards, del Toro shows how the country came together and, even if they were weaker and smaller, used their camaraderie and numbers to overcome their oppressor. In this way, The Devil's Backbone transcends the horror genre and instead becomes a piece of political commentary and represents del Toro's fantastical view of the Spanish Civil War through the eyes of children. In a way, this introduces themes and ideas he later revisited in Pan's Labyrinth, which I believe to be a stronger film. However, as a companion piece, The Devil's Backbone is undeniably powerful and yet another great work by del Toro.

Acting-wise, the film is impressive. For so many child actors, the acting is The Devil's Backbone is of an incredibly high quality. The entirety of the cast nails their respective roles and the kids bring an incredible authenticity to their roles. At all times, you believe they are going through this situation and are forced to deal with the agony of the terror surrounding them. They are able to approach the situation with the innocence and sense of imagination of a child, creating methods of coping that obscure what is actually occurring (the comics). However, in saying that, watching their innocence be shattered by the peril they face is tragic and thoroughly impactful.

Not really a horror film, The Devil's Backbone is more a fantastical exploration of the Spanish Civil War through political allegory and the eyes of children. A tragic and often hard to watch film, The Devil's Backbone shows the destruction of innocence at the hands of tyranny and the violence needed to overcome that authority. Powerful, poignant, and atmospheric, The Devil's Backbone once again demonstrates that nobody does child-like wonder blended with violence like Guillermo del Toro.

7/10 - Honestly, I am a major Woody Allen apologist. His films always make me laugh and provide fantastic entertainment, as such they receive positive reviews. Hollywood Ending is one such film. Derided as overlong, the film tells the story of a neurotic film director who suffers from psychosomatic blindness and tries to direct his comeback film entirely blind. Featuring Woody Allen in his classic neurotic role in one of his films, the film pairs him with Tea Leoni, who plays his ex-wife and a producer that scored him his last chance. Off-kilter, funny, overlong, and not long enough, Hollywood Ending is certainly lesser Allen, but that is more a credit to his track record than a criticism of this film.

A critical and box office bomb upon its release in 2002, Hollywood Ending is certainly not for everybody and does not necessarily deserve a reappraisal. The main criticisms regarding its humor and its length are both fair. With less effective jokes than his best films and with his humor being divisive anyways, the mixed reception makes sense. For the most part, it does feel as though Woody is directing this very film blind as it largely runs through the same framework and characters as his past works. He is hardly reinventing the wheel here and much of the fun is simply derived from the thought of a man directing an entire film blind. This joke runs thin when the film gets closer and closer to the two hour mark and the film would have been well-served by being shorter. That said, more time spent actually showing us how the film turned out would have been incredibly entertaining and given additional context to the poor reception from test audiences and studio executives. They are repulsed, but I need to know if this is Battlefield Earth bad or just disappointing. Fortunately, this negative reception does lead to the best joke of the film regarding the French reception to the film and how critically praised it was over there. Given that the Cahiers du Cinema top 10 list is always good for including a critically panned American film, this joke really landed with me. That said, the jokes are hit-and-miss and the film's premise loses steam.

Fortunately, the jokes that do work are really up my alley. Classic Woody Allen jokes abound here with silly, subtle, and witty jokes combined with visual gags. The simple pleasure of watching this man try to direct while blind was entertaining on its own, as was Allen's neurotic performance. Though it is a character he has played many times now, in this case, the film was very reflexive. With the director being a demanding guy who is hard to work with, runs over budget, works with exes, and wants to use foreign cinematographers, it is hard to not compare the character to Allen himself. From what I understand, he is not nearly as neurotic as his acting persona, but all the same, the other traits stick. The end result is a film that is quite reflective on his career and the industry as a whole.

However, the best scenes are certainly when Val Waxman (Allen) is forced to try and hide his affliction from the studio. Stumbling around and bumping into things, the scenes wreak of desperation and highlight how much Val needs the gig directing this film. In these scenes, the commentary on the industry is also at its best with a lot behind-the-scenes moments of contract negotiations, management of talent, and working on the film. As a lover of film, I ate these scenes up and this film really show why I like showbiz films. Woody Allen knows showbiz and brings it to life in this film, even following through on the self-reflexivity of the film with a unique twist on the "hollywood ending". Though not strictly happy and neat, the ending is certainly hopeful and upbeat compared to the neurosis of the rest of the film.

Funny and compelling, Hollywood Ending is probably just a film for Woody Allen fans. All other need not apply because it not nearly funny enough or short enough to really hit a large demographic of film fans. Yet, for Allen fans such as myself, Hollywood Ending is a fun and engaging comedy that explores the nuances of Hollywood and offers a somewhat behind-the-scenes look at how it is making a film and working alongside Allen in real life.

8/10 - A tragic anti-war film, Casualties of War is a film that features a more subdued Brian De Palma. Instead of lacing the film with grand and distracting tracking shots and split-screens, De Palma tackles the Vietnam War and grills the actions of troops worldwide. Telling the true story of four American soldiers that raped and murdered a Vietnamese woman, Casualties of War is not afraid to get down and dirty to paint both a harrowing portrayal of the war and the atrocities that these men committed. With stirring camera movements as always with De Palma, Casualties of War is a gritty and deeply impactful war film that sheds light to what can occur in combat.

Known for his camera movements, Casualties of War shows a largely restrained De Palma. My personal favorite shots of his are the long, exuberant tracking shots he often employs. Yet, unless I missed it, there were no stereotypical De Palma tracking shots here. Aside from some tracking shots of soldiers walking, which are par for the course in war films, he never indulges this trademark of his work. However, he does get quite crafty with a point of view shot later on in the film when the men turn on Private Eriksson (Michael J. Fox). The only man in the group of five who resisted and tried to help the girl instead of raping her, Eriksson tries to report what happened to his superiors, but is met with resistance. In order to keep him quiet, Corporal Clark (Don Patrick Harvey) attempts to kill Eriksson and to show this scene, De Palma uses a point of view from Clark. Initially keeping us in the dark as to who is perpetrating this action, the scene is intense and captures the raw authenticity such a scene demands. Aside from this, a sunlit scene of the soldiers scaling a mountain and an aerial view of napalm being dropped and of the Viet Cong, stand as some of the best shots in the film. De Palma knows visual splendor and, though restrained a bit here, Casualties of War remains a visually spectacular film that captures the horror of war.

However, one of the most powerful scenes in when the girl is being raped. With the four men - Sergeant Meserve (Sean Penn), Corporal Clark, Private Hatcher (John C. Reilly), and Private Diaz (John Leguizamo) - all taking turns, De Palma never puts us in the room. Instead, he uses an over-the-shoulder shot with Eriksson in the foreground and the background rape scene slightly obscured. However, the scene never loses its impact as we can still hear her scream and the horrible dialogue between the men. In particular, an exchange between Diaz and Meserve takes center stage where Diaz is the only man to rape her, but not want to. Instead, he does it as an act of self-preservation, fearful that he will be killed if he does not partake. With Meserve threatening him, the scene is incredibly powerful and incredibly well-written. However, the framing and staging is really what steals the show here as De Palma manages to not exploit the crime for shock, but also ensures that the horror of the act is not lost on the audience. He does not need to show everything to us, instead just letting us hear it allows us to feel the horror and atrocity of what is occurring.

However, Casualties of War is flawed. While a painful, tragic, and - at times - horrific war film, it does suffer from some occasional slips in the acting. Though the script is incredible with the way in which it criticizes the actions of soldiers, but steers clear of damning the entire military, the script is incredibly nuanced. De Palma may demonize the company in which this occurred, but his criticism clearly does not extend to the entirety of the military. Instead, he criticizes the actions that can occur in combat and cries out for these actions to be punished, irregardless of where they took place or the age of the criminals. Yet, though the script is powerful, there is certainly moments of unconvincing deliveries. Though Sean Penn is on point here, Fox, Reilly, and Harvey, all have their moments where a line just sounds off. It is almost unconvincing to a degree and does harm the final product. Fortunately, Penn's violent brilliance in the film does outweigh these moments of bad acting, as does the great dialogue. The film's ending, however, could have been better. If the script has any faults, it comes here with a largely neat ending and an unclear connection between a conversation in a bar and the military tribunal. I also do wish the film tied up the loose ends, including revealing the unfortunate sentences actually served by these vicious rapists.

That said, Casualties of War remains an excellent Vietnam War film. An anti-war film in the sense that it criticizes the horrific actions committed by soldiers worldwide, De Palma strikes a balance between criticizing soldiers and the chain of command without criticizing the entirety of the country or the military. He also does an excellent job covering the war and the horrors these men see that certainly play a role in leading them to commit such horrible actions. Though hardly a justification or excuse, the atrocities these men witnessed cannot be ignored and De Palma does a great job at highlighting these without becoming distracted from the crimes they committed. The film's visuals are incredible as with any other De Palma film and help Casualties of War to become a truly tragic film. Complementing this, of course, is the tremendous score by Ennio Morricone. Unsympathetic to either side, Casualties of War walks the fine line between the Vietnamese and the Americans, even if it does only show the American side of the conflict. As Fox's character states, "I thought we were supposed to help these people." By taking this middle ground, De Palma is able to criticize war and what it makes and allows men to do in the name of "combat". Through the desensitization they experience, they lose sight of the goal of the war and instead become focused upon fulfilling their violent urges on people they have come to hate for no reason other than their skin color.

Tragic, hard to watch, and gritty, Casualties of War ranks among the best works by Brian De Palma. Largely missing some of his trademark shots (unless I missed them, which is always possible, but they are hardly as huge and expansive as many of the ones in his other films, rather the tracking shots here are hardly different from many other war films), Casualties of War does not really feel like a De Palma film per se. However, his influence can certainly be seen with some of the visual flair added to the film, as well as the gruesome and brutal actions that can occur in the combat zone at the hands of men who are given a gun and told that killing is good.

4/10 - Fighting against the belief that women exist solely for the pleasure of men, Sucker Punch shows that its female characters happen to allow just exist for the pleasure of men. Though envisioned as a female empowerment film, Zack Snyder's scantily clad women wind up living up to the sexist beliefs of its teenage boy target audience, never managing to escape the clutches of their low-cut tops and thigh-high socks. While the film misses the mark on the feminism and instead turns into an unfortunately sexist film itself, Sucker Punch does feature Snyder's trademark visual style and some incredibly fun action set pieces, but it is hardly enough to overcome Snyder's thematic failures in the director's chair and the bad characters.

With video game aesthetics aplenty, Snyder's films are always beautiful. Though I invariably hate the end product, Snyder's films have a comic book/video game look to them and he certainly embraces this in Sucker Punch. With great visual effects and eye candy cinematography, the film is simply gorgeous to look at. While the usage of slow motion in every action scene is far too much, he does still do a great job at capturing the look and feel of playing a video game and it benefits the film greatly. Using this aesthetic to create a light and fun atmosphere, Sucker Punch is a deathly serious film that had fun within the bounds of seriousness. Its action may appear over-the-top, but makes sense if it is a recreation of a comic book or video game. In this regard, the film is incredibly fun and exciting with Snyder having a knack for creating, at the very least, fun action set pieces. While his direction of the action is a bit muddled, the infectious fun is hard to deny.

Yet, the rest of the film is a struggle. With a Spotify playlist open going through a playlist Snyder likely entitled "Favorite Rock/Feminist Song Covers", the music is always distracting. It is easy to see Snyder's influence on 2016's Suicide Squad with the heavy use of music in this film. Though Snyder claims the music means a lot in the film due to Babydoll (Emily Browning) dancing to the music and being transferred to a dream world, we never see the dancing and only hear the annoying music. As such, it is hard to say that music means much in this film at all. Instead, it is merely the presence of it that signifies anything, which is replaceable and, ultimately, useless.

However, the film is ultimately about a feminist uprising against the patriarchy. Seems interesting on the surface, but Snyder's muddled approach renders it instead a tale about how women who fight must do so with the help of men because they cannot do it on their own. With the trapped girls enlisting a mystery man (Scott Glenn) to help them in various stages of their escape, they would have failed if it were not for him. He not only tells them what to get to escape, but helps Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish) actually complete her escape. Thus, while women can fight and kick ass the same as men, they still need a man's help to complete the job. Moving onto the minimalist costume design, it is as if Sucker Punch had a limited wardrobe budget that Warner Bros. refused to increase. With women dressed in clothing that comes straight out a young teenage boy's sexual fantasies, Sucker Punch is more akin to a bad porno than a film. To Snyder, showing women kicking ass in skimpy clothing probably seemed empowering. I guess the sense that women would probably disagree with him, especially with the amount they are sexualized, objectified, and subjects to the "male gaze". Laura Mulvey would certainly have a field day with this one due to its usage of the male gaze, the way in which the women represent visual pleasure, and how they would fail within the help of men.

While well-intentioned, Snyder's film wreaks of a man trying to making a feminist picture and being unable to overcome his own prejudices in the process. Rather than sexualizing the characters, why can they not be dressed in a way that women actually dress? Why continuously highlight their legs and breasts every chance you get? Why make them prostitutes at one point? Why have them rely on a man to help them? This is not female empowerment. This is a man who is unaware that the patriarchy extends beyond his comprehension. This does lead into one of the film's greatest strengths, however: Oscar Isaac. Playing Blue Jones, the ruthless asylum/club owner, Isaac is brilliant. With his character essentially symbolizing the brutality and exploitative-nature of the patriarchy, Isaac is a menacing figure and shows that Snyder can understand his themes to some degree. He drops the ball when it comes to the women, but knows how to create a man who symbolizes the very essence of the bias and prejudice that continues to hold women back.

A messy attempt to show girl power on the screen, Sucker Punch was a critical and box office failure. Having now seen the film, its failure is not because people are not ready for women action heroes (as Warner Bros. believes). It failed because it is a bad film. End of story. It may capture the patriarchy well with a great imaginative plot and fantastic visuals, but the music, characters, and female empowerment angle all fail spectacularly. It is a film that believes it is about one thing - female empowerment - but is really about the opposite and only serves to hurt women and further objectify them. Instead of empowering them, it serves up its female heroines as fetishized women ready to provide for the visual stimulation of teenage boys.

7/10 - A smart thriller from director Steven Soderbergh, I first saw Contagion in a high school health class. As may be obvious, I originally hated it because I saw it in a class that I hated. Thus, as part of my attempt to rewatch movies that probably did not receive a fair shake from me when I first saw them, Contagion was given a reappraisal. On a rewatch, it is hardly a great film, but it is a taut, well-paced thriller that really captures how an epidemic of this scale would play out in real life with all the required desperation, trauma, and violence. Though it loses steam towards the end, Contagion remains a thoroughly compelling film with great direction and acting.

Showing the spread of an epidemic from Hong Kong throughout the entire world, Contagion stars an ensemble cast of Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Gwyneth Paltrow, Laurence Fishburne, Jennifer Ehle, Marion Cotillard, Jude Law, Elliott Gould, Bryan Cranston, and John Hawkes. In the midst of the hyperlink style of the film, Contagion loses sight of a few of its characters. Particularly, Cotillard's Leonara Orantes, a World Health Organization doctor. Kidnapped in Hong Kong to ensure that a village gets the vaccine once it is ready, Soderbergh seems to forget her or does not find her story nearly as captivating. Though her role in the story is clear - to show the desperation and destruction of human civility in the face of an epidemic - the story never utilizes her well enough to justify her appearance. While Cotillard nails the limited role, it adds far too much confusion and not enough meat. Similarly, Jude Law's blogger Alan Krumwiedge, who spreads false information and gets rich as a result, is a compelling character. However, it feels as though he is not nearly fleshed out well enough. For an antagonistic character, his reason for spreading misinformation is unclear and his character fakes being sick, but they barely come back to it again at the end. By the end of the film, his character's actions remain unexplained and we never know if he followed through on advising his readers against taking the vaccine. As with Cotillard's character, Krumwiede is forgotten in the sea of characters.

However, Soderbergh never loses sight of three people: Matt Damon's Mitch Emhoff, Kate Winslet's Dr. Erin Mears, and Laurence Fishburne's Dr. Ellis Cheever. With all three actors turning in stellar performances, Soderbergh dives head first into these characters with great results. Reeling from the death of his wife and son as a result of disease, Mitch Emhoff is immune, but must focus on caring for his daughter. The calm amidst the storm of angry citizens, Mitch is essentially an audience surrogate and a good one at that. It is easy to relate to his trauma and precautions throughout, which make the pay-off with his character all the more sweet and sentimental. Dr. Mears is a hard nosed first responder who tells the audience what we need to know. For being a source of exposition, Mears is a surprisingly nuanced character with the ability to strike fear into the heart of the audience and also evoke serious pathos along the way. Fishburne's Dr. Cheever is the head of the CDC and presents a compelling moral dilemma to the audience: if you have information that is classified that can help save your loved ones, do you tell them and risk your job and, possibly, the life of others? The ramifications of his actions and the characters' reactions are well handled and a deeply compelling dilemma. All three characters are well-written and well-executed thanks to terrific acting and direction.

However, one of the greatest achievements here is the ability of Soderbergh to elicit thrills from science. A smart and slow thriller, Soderbergh takes his time to develop the science element of the film and let the audience know all the dirty details of an epidemic. With a haunting and menacing score that ever present, Contagion drops you into a world of sheer terror and pain, and it is incredibly effective at getting under your skin in this regard. With a realistic setting, timing, and impact, Contagion manages to be a real world thriller that could potentially be a simulation of events to come. The way in which makes the crisis human via Matt Damon's character is incredibly effective and shows the impact the spread of the disease would have on every day people, which makes the film all the more immediate and powerful. The ending sequence with Damon's daughter is moving and stirring, standing as a perfect ending to the film and a cathartic release after all of the tension.

Unfortunately, Contagion does fall apart a bit at the end. In trying to tie up loose ends, it loses some steam and the thrills disappear. Once the vaccine is in action, things slow down considerably and the tension of before is gone. While this makes sense, it hardly makes for a compelling finish and the climax has a very low high, which feels disappointing after such a tense beginning. In particular, the ending in Hong Kong with Cotillard's character and the wrap-up with Jude Law's character are both highly disappointing and anticlimactic. The film largely leaves these as loose ends, which I am typically fine with, but feels off in comparison to the rest of the film.

That said, Contagion is a tense, taut, and tight, film from Steven Soderbergh about a worldwide epidemic. Capturing the fear, the spread, and the mystery, Contagion could double as a horror film for some and will most certainly make you want to wash your hands 100 times more than usual.

Spangle · 01-15-2017, 02:22 PM

7/10 - Largely disappointing. The first film I have seen by Pedro Almodovar, All About My Mother still has me excited to check out the rest of his filmography, but this one is definitely flawed. A melodrama that is certainly partially an homage to films such as A Streetcar Named Desire and All About Eve, All About My Mother is a moving, tragic, and heart wrenching experience. With themes of parenthood, death, AIDS, transsexuality, and faith, the film is an undeniably powerful experience. However, with a rushed ending and other moments of brevity throughout the film, All About My Mother loses some of its impact along the way.

Starring Cecilia Roth as Manuela, a grieving mother who recently lost her son, but has a mysterious past, the film explores her life after the death of her son. The film is an excellent exploration of her character and as she travels to find her son's transsexual father, Lola (Toni Canto). Never having told Lola she had a son (and named it Esteban, which was Lola's past name), Manuela travels to Barcelona, but meets a cast of characters along the way who alter her course. The purpose of the film may be to find Lola, but it spends far more time exploring Manuela's interactions with actress Huma (Marisa Paredes), transsexual prostitute Agrado (Antonia San Juan), and the HIV-positive and pregnant nun Rosa (Penelope Cruz). In the process, it explores the aforementioned themes and the stereotypes that perpetuate them.

Regarding AIDS and transsexuality, it is clear that there is an opposite reaction after the initial repulsion. People certainly look down upon both HIV-positive and transsexual people (even now) and All About My Mother captures this element. Yet, the film shows how people then have differing reactions to both. For those who are HIV-positive, such as Rosa, people are repulsed and want nothing to do with her. Her own mother, once Rosa gives birth, wants nothing to do with the child for fear that she will become HIV-positive as well. For transsexuals, they are still repulsed, but there is an inherent curiosity to this repulsion. Per Almodovar, people may not like transsexuals, but they find the blending of male and female private parts to be compelling and entirely erotic. The film shows how transsexuals must overcome these sexual advances to become what they really are: regular people who just happen to deviate from the norm.

The film blends these themes with themes of death and of faith. With Manuela's son dying and others dying from AIDS in the film, it is clear that death permeates the film. Through the melodrama, Almodovar wrings every possible ounce of tears out of the crowd, but he does lose some impact by skipping over death. He expects us to put it together, which we clearly can, but just hearing about it and seeing them die is entirely different. In this vein, the films brevity hurts it with these powerful moments losing all emotional impact due to his approach. With regards to faith, the power of God is ever present in this film. With His ability to heal highlighted toward the end, the film's thematic dealings with faith are clear through the presence of Rosa. A pregnant and HIV-positive nun, she is positively shown despite the juxtaposition. Selfless and willing to help people wherever needed, Rosa highlights the best of Christianity and, even if she has slipped into sin, there is forgiveness for her at the end of the day, even if her family is unwilling to accept her. For Almodovar, it is clear that faith is important in this film, but character triumphs all. Just because you are religious, it does not mean you are without sin, but your character means far more than any sins you may have committed.

A powerful melodrama, All About My Mother has a pretty poor ending where Almodovar just jumps ahead in time, losing all emotional impact, and just tells us what happened to characters. We see Manuela leave and come back after two years in five seconds, which is incredibly jarring. The film, in an attempt to cover its characters in greater depth without making the film longer, skims along at the end. For such a good film beforehand, it is disappointing to see Almodovar shorthand the ending and wind up crippling the final product. That said, the tremendous acting, writing, compelling themes, and unique colors and art direction, make the film a good one. I certainly hope my further exploration of Almodovar's filmography yields more enthusiastic results, however.

8/10 - The last film I saw in 2016 and the first film I have reviewed in 2017, Moana is a great finale for the year. Yet another kinetic and truly magical animated experience from Disney, Moana is a great combination of emotion, music, and mythology. With brilliantly composed music, infectious songs, great comedy, and lovely characterization, Moana is a showcase for the level of storytelling that Disney is able to churn out in its animated works. Between this, Zootopia, and Finding Dory, it was truly a banner year for the studio giant, both with its films and its box office receipts.

Featuring all the Disney trademarks with a princess, a goofy and boisterous sidekick, animal sidekicks, restrictive parents, and dead relatives, Moana is a journey of self-discovery. With Moana (Auli'i Cravalho) chosen by the ocean to restore the heart of Te Fiti in order to life the darkness that consumes her homeland, she must take demigod Maui (Dwayne Johnson) - who stole the heart - with her in order to complete the mission. A long and arduous journey, it is through this journey that the film reveals its ultimate moral: you must know who you are to know where you are going. While following your heart and inner compass are certainly other elements of Moana, none feature nearly as prominently as the portion that stands as the ultimate moral in my eyes. There are repeated references to this moral throughout and the song, "How Far I'll Go" - also the most prominent song on the soundtrack and the one that begins to play during the credits - is very much about this moral as well. The mythology of Moana's people supports this as well, as they were once voyagers. As shown in a flashback song, the voyagers kept a sharp eye out for where they were going, largely based upon where they had been and where home was located. This can be adjusted for everybody in the audience by simply stating: follow your dreams by knowing where you were and using it to help you get where you want to be. As is typical, this is a great message for children and adults alike.

Using magical-looking blues and purples throughout, the film is incredibly vibrant. With large and impeccably animated musical set pieces alongside these gorgeous visuals (especially those with the sting ray), Moana is a feast for the sense. Your eyes will love it and so will your ears. The visuals and the music are constantly in great harmony. The visuals are certainly bolstered by the excellent animation that, on one watch, had no noticeable flaws. At all times, the film utilized its animation to create fun and interesting visuals that will undoubtedly keep kids engaged and not annoy parents, even with its incredible vibrancy. The music, with great melodies and tunes influenced by its location, is tremendous. Though not the best music of the year (La La Land), Moana is a film that certainly packs a punch with emotional, compelling, and wonderfully composed/written music. Some have said that the music is forgettable, but I found it to be anything but with songs such as "How Far I'll Go" certain to find a home in my Spotify.

The story, if simplistic, is still packed with emotion and comedy. From the great stupid chicken to provide comic relief to the dead relatives to deliver the pathos, Moana is a film that plays with your emotions. It is capable of making you laugh one second and hold back tears the next. This is a balance that the very best Disney animated movies can create and it is one that Moana excels in harnessing. Though it is obviously manipulative at times, the sight of the stingray never made me not well up, so clearly it was incredibly effective with the manipulation. The film is also incredibly adept at balancing the music, the comedy, and plot. Though the plot is, again, simplistic, it is still engaging. Serious moments of adventure or mythology are never interrupted by comedy from the chicken or out of place musical moments. Each element has its place and Moana is able to balance the trio. Given the inclinations of another Disney property (Marvel) to inject humor in all serious moments, I feared this one would fall into the same traps, but it never took the bait. Instead, it waited for the serious moments to play out and then it introduced the comedy. By picking its spots with the comedic relief, the comedy always feels fresh and, well, funny.

An incredible work by Disney Animation, Moana shows that the mega studio still has what it takes to create wonderful stories about Princesses, big brutes, and dead relatives. Though it sticks to the formula very closely, it is always engaging, moving, and funny, so that is more than enough for me. In 20 years, Moana will likely be cited alongside Frozen as the "classics" for the kids of today.

4/10 - "It is as if The Notebook and Interstellar had sex and had a baby."
- My cousin

I am going to write a review, but this quote really sums up everything about this film. From the creepy and morally unethical meeting (waking up Aurora vs threatening to kill yourself in The Notebook) to the premise, time spent away from family traveling, and the gratuitous shots of the ship in space (Interstellar), Passengers is a sick concoction of the two. As neither of those films are great (Interstellar being good and The Notebook above average), it should be obvious that Passengers would wind up being disappointingly below average. Though its leads try their best, the inherently creepy nature of their romance, cliches, awful second half, and director Morten Tyldum's obsession with the Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt's asses and sex appeal derail Passengers.

The premise has been much discussed at this point, but it is certainly an engaging one. After a collision with a meteor, a spaceship traveling for 120 years to a new planet with 5,000 people aboard begins to malfunction, Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) wakes up 90 years too early. Left on his own, he finds ways to pass the time, such as speaking to the android bartender (Michael Sheen). During this portion of the film, it is certainly slow, but is entirely compelling. The audience feels Jim's isolation, desperation, and loneliness. He is just a normal guy who wanted a fresh start, but is instead dealt the worst hand possible and is left all alone on this ship. However, Passengers quickly nosedives. Though Jim knows it is morally wrong to wake up Aurora Lane (Jennifer Lawrence), a woman he noticed and began to stalk and obsess over, he opts to wake her up anyways. Passengers then goes on to half-heartedly scold him, try and have us root for him, and seemingly draw a parallel between that action and a later one by Aurora. Spoiler, she wakes up him later on in the film. It is clear the film is about the lengths we go to in order to not be lonely, but that the end justifies the means. Fortunately, it seems that Tyldum was onto this one and knew audiences would reject this moral. Though powerless to change the story, he opted to just have Pratt rip off his shirt and Lawrence get naked (even though she does not have to strip to get into that suit, just hike up your skirt you idiot). If the plot is creepy, Tyldum gives the film a few extra sprinkles of sexy and shots of asses in order to try and distract less discerning audiences. For those still unable to forget the "moral dilemma" faced by Jim and his actions, the proceeding hour and a half or so will just get progressively creepier and, as one critic pointed out, begin to resemble Stockholm Syndrome.

However, it would be misleading to claim that the creepy nature of the romance is Passengers' only flaw. It is also incredibly cliche. With the romance being incredibly trite, the aforementioned "sexiness" is used to try and spice up the film. Instead, it only further distracts from the plot and adds nothing to the film. The romance in this film feels as though the studio loved the setting and the original premise of the film, but opted to make it more commercially viable. Thus, they cast two attractive leads and decided the innovation of the film would be to have them have sex in space. While I admit seeing so much sex in space was a first for me, the romance itself is hardly new. Most romance films have a creepy beginning, secrets, and the cringeworthy "you die, I die" line. The film's cliches know no bounds as well with the two leads physically incapable of dying. Unfortunately, convenient plot devices such as Chief Gus Mancuso (Laurence Fishburne), are not as immortal. Woken up two years after Jim due to the ship malfunctioning, Gus Mancuso may be the funnest character, but is the most cliche. The definition of a convenient occurrence, Mancuso exists only to explain the situation to the main characters, wag his finger judgmentally at Pratt, and then die. In his short time alive, Mancuso is able to give the characters access to the entire ship, which enables them to fix the ship. This invariably leads up to the over-the-top ending in which Jim Preston survives a situation nobody could reasonably expect to survive. Here, Passengers plays into the stereotypical "Hollywood ending" and even has the gaul to skip 88 years into the future and ignore the fact the characters' corpses are still on the ship. After having a thoroughly compelling premise and great opening with Jim wandering the ship, Passengers' second half is nothing but a creepy and cliched romance, cliched scenes of peril, and a simplistic and rosy ending ill-fitting of a film of this ilk.

That said, Passengers is not all bad. Though the writing is lackluster and plain, the special effects and visuals are anything but. With a gorgeous ship that Tyldum loves taking advantage of, the camera slides around this ship with ease and captures every gorgeous inch. For all of its faults, the special effects highlight the film's best piece: the premise. With great little touches including robots, the kitchen, gold star memberships, the itinerary, sleeping chambers, and more, Passengers' world is wholly compelling. The special effects, as such, are largely inventive and this is where the film separates itself from other science fiction films. The world of the ship here is worthy of further exploration. This is what makes the film so disappointing, as instead of exploring the ship, Passengers only gives you little samples of the possibilities aboard the Avalon. Instead, we get a creepy guy and an annoying girl humping for an hour. From the shots of space, the scene of great peril, shots of the ship, and the little knick-knacks aboard the Avalon, Passengers is a film with truly fantastic visual effects. At every turn, the film is a feast for the eyes in this regard, even if the cinematography is largely quite vanilla.

The acting is also a major strength here. Lawrence and Pratt turn in solid performances, with Lawrence somewhat disappointing and Pratt surprisingly solid. However, the show is stolen by Michael Sheen and Laurence Fishburne. Neither receives much screentime, but they both received the best lines of the film and really made the most of them. This duo really deserved better, but they certainly made the most of the material presented to them in Passengers.

Though much of this review is spent derailing the film, Passengers is merely below average. Adhering strictly to romance and science fiction cliches, Passengers is a clear product of being a film-by-committee. Compared to Tyldum's past works - such as Headhunters and The Imitation Game - Passengers is largely lifeless. It follows the cliches so closely, it forgets it can divert from them and become its own film. While cliches can work for films that play with them and execute them well with great chemistry, characters, and pathos, this is the not the case here. Instead, the film skips over the chemistry and the characters portion and assumes that putting together two stars will create pathos and entertainment. As such, Passengers is simply a lazy effort that winds up being nothing but disappointing.

[Image: 220px-Poster-pursuithappyness.jpg]

7/10 - An undeniably inspirational story, The Pursuit of Happyness is a good film that, even if flawed, is a good film that provides great entertainment. Largely well-written, the film stars Will Smith as Chris Gardner. A man who is coping with his wife leaving him, raising a son, and being homeless, Chris partakes in an internship program to become a stock broker. A real life fairy tale, The Pursuit of Happyness shows the American dream coming true with Chris working hard and being rewarded for this effort. While it is sentimental and safe along the way, it is hard to deny that the film is often incredibly powerful and thoroughly engaging throughout.

Pairing Will Smith with his son Jaden in the lead roles, one of the greatest assets of the film is the father-son relationship. In the role of the son, Jaden Smith is adorable. With childish jokes and innocent confusion over their situation, he turns in a shockingly solid performance here that makes you both smile and fight back tears at times. Yet, the true powerhouse here is Will Smith. Expertly portraying the down-on-his-luck Gardner, Smith is incredible in this film. Turning in a determined and emotionally vulnerable performance, Smith shows that he is more than just an action hero. He certainly does utilize his natural charisma in the film, but at all times, his performance feels achingly authentic and realistic. He may be charismatic, but you know that a broken man is just below the surface.

As has been said before, the film's plot greatly resembles classics such as The Bicycle Thieves. Though a true story, the film's narrative and plotting fit closely to the rags to the riches formula, which makes the story itself quite predictable. When things can get worse, they do. However, the film will always wind up happy because he has to become rich at some point. Thus, the film's story represents some pretty typical writing. Fortunately, as mentioned before, the writing's greatest strength is its characters. With the father and son duo incredibly well-rounded characters, the film is elevated significantly. The wife, Linda (Thandie Newton), is not really explored, but this is also not her story. She is a supporting part and we never see her thought process because the film is about her husband. Thus, it is not really an oversight of the film. As such, as a character study, The Pursuit of Happyness is incredibly successful as it creates characters that are easy to root for and then it drops you inside their mind. As a result, significant pathos is evoked when seeing a man who works so hard to try and better himself and his child suffer mightily.

Sweet and sentimental, The Pursuit of Happyness is not a great film. It is an easy watch that is guaranteed to move you as a result of Chris Gardner's story. Will Smith brings charisma and emotion to the role, while bringing along a great relationship with his son Jaden to the film. Together, the duo help to elevate the film above the Hallmark/Lifetime trappings of the story into a very successful and entertaining piece of entertainment. While cliched and predictable, the film never ceases to be engaging and rise above the cliches through the aforementioned acting and great characters.

[Image: 220px-Cartel-nuevo-de-el-secreto-de-sus-ojos.jpg]

8/10 - An intense crime film, The Secret in Their Eyes is incredibly dark, thrilling, and smart. Often times, mystery crime films can sort of go through the motions. There is a murder and a detective sets off to find out who committed the crime. There are clues, there are red herrings, and then the predictable ending arrives. It is the equivalent of watching a crime show on CBS that is shown on Thursday nights. Yet, this Argentinian crime film is any but that sort of film. Instead, it is a smart film that creates political parallels and crafts a compelling tale of revenge, punishment, and pain. Instead of relying upon the crime, the crime merely serves as a spring board into deeper and more purposeful explorations.

Remade in 2015, I have not seen the remake, but it is clear that it is very different than this film. Starting with the brutal rape and murder of a woman, Liliana Coloto (Carla Quevedo), the film introduces our detective: Benjamin Esposito (Ricardo Darin). Writing a novel about the case 25 years after it happened, Esposito is a man who has never let go of this case. After the convicted killer escaped his clutches, Esposito continues to track him while forging an never-to-be romance with his boss, Irene (Soledad Vallamil). Along the way, he interacts with Liliana's widowed husband, Ricardo Morales (Pablo Rago). As the film likely indicates through the title, the eyes are very important, as well as passion. A thing a person is passionate is something they can never let go. This is a major focus of the film, with much of the story being told through the eyes. Irene and Benjamin are passionate about one another and can never let each go, no matter how much time has passed. Ricardo is passionate about Liliana and cannot let her go as he seeks revenge for his wife's brutal death. The murderer is passionate about Liliana. These passions are through the eyes with Ricardo identifying the killer because of the look in his eyes in a photo and he can tell Ricardo's passion and anger simply by looking into his eyes. Here, the film is incredibly smart and really takes to the heart the belief that the eyes are the window to the soul.

One of the best features of the film, however, is the way in which it does not focus on the crime. By the halfway point, we know the killer. Yet, the film continues to have tricks up its sleeves and keeps you guessing all the way to the end. By the time the film ends, it leaves you shocked with its subtle brutality and the horrifying nightmare experienced by its character. The story here is really in the details and require complete attention throughout to be able to follow all of the moving parts. Thus, it is a film that would certainly benefit from a rewatch in order to pick up on all of these intricacies.

Using a color-palette of browns, golds, and some grays, The Secret in Their Eyes feels both warm and passionate. Campanella uses the connotations of these colors to create a haunting atmosphere that feels omnipresent in the film and never really ceases. Though brown is typically a color of comfort, he uses it in such a way that nothing ever feels comfortable. Esposito walking to a crime scene or in the house leaves you with great anxiety, even if browns are a major color in these moments. At the very least, these colors work very well together the film is incredibly appealing to the eyes. With this great blend of colors, the film captures the nostalgic and melancholy nature of the film as Esposito is filled with regret over his love life and the crime, with nostalgia for a time when he had Irene and could have had a life with her.

Acting-wise, the film is equally terrific. Darin turns in a great performance in the lead role, capturing the stolid nature of his character as well as the internal tormented soul. As the film focuses on the eyes, his eyes are great here and really reveal the true nature of his character. Pablo Rago is also great in a smaller role here as he captures the depression and passion of Morales, the widowed husband. By the end, his performance stands as being one of the more haunting roles in the film and leaves a great impression along the way.

Overall, The Secret in Their Eyes is a great film. Haunting, tragic, and thrilling, the film uses a great color scheme to create an odd warmth for its tale of passion. Exceeding the trappings of the crime mystery genre, the film never plays it safe and instead rises above cliches and keeps you guessing throughout. At no point is the film's tragic conclusion predictable, but it is certainly fun to watch it all come together with the film showcasing all of its little subtle hints that led to this finale.

6/10 - The directorial debut of Matthew Ross, Frank & Lola is an excellent debut film. While merely an above average film, the film often feels like the debut of a soon-to-be great filmmaker. Showing great intuition when it comes to storytelling and some very cool camera shots along the way, Ross shows that he knows how to direct a film. However, as with all debuts, Frank & Lola merely feels unpolished. If you look closely, you can still see the brush strokes on the canvas. Under the leadership of a more seasoned director, Frank & Lola could have been the best erotic noir thriller in a long time. Under the watch of Ross, however, it is merely a hint at what is to come. This is also the film where I learned that it is Imogen Poots not Imogen Potts. I have no idea why I thought that, but I have even tagged her as Imogen Potts on multiple reviews.

A deeply sexual film, Frank & Lola's greatest tricks are the camera. There are numerous shots that are incredible and shows that Ross has a tremendous eye for visuals. One such shot is of Frank (Michael Shannon) following Alan (Michael Nyqvist) in Paris. Influenced by the films of Alfred Hitchcock, this voyeuristic sequence would certainly be at home in one of his films or one by Brian De Palma. This comparison becomes more apt when considering the voyeurism in the context of the film. Deeply jealous and obsessed, Frank is one half of the "rotten" relationship with Lola (Imogen Poots). Similar to De Palma or Hitchcock, Ross expends a lot of energy exploring Frank's jealousy and obsession. Though Lola gives him plenty of reason to be worried, Frank is deeply obsessed with her and her every move. Him telling her that when he wakes up, he thinks about her is hardly a sign of love. Rather, it is a sign that he is dangerously obsessed with her and could wind up hurting her. Throughout, Frank is shown to be a violent man as he attacks Alan and attacks a man who is beating a girl in a bar. In many ways, it could be argued this anger is facing inward as he fights those who act on his inclinations. He never hurts Lola, but certainly feels possessive and hates to see men who acts this way or who infringe upon his ownership of Lola and her body. This obsession is certainly a theme of Hitchcock and De Palma's work, as is voyeurism, showing that Ross is certainly influenced by both. Though I am hardly calling him the new incarnation of those two, he certainly has the potential and is willing to indulge in similar themes.

Ross also shows an inclination towards mirror shots, which I am always a big fan of. The best one coming at the very end after Frank goes to the kitchen and returns to where Lola is sitting, except she is gone. As he walks to the bar, the camera is standing outside a doorway looking into the room. Adjacent to the door is a mirror where you can see Frank. Next to that, along the door frame, is another mirror where Lola can be seen. The focus then racks to highlight Lola's forlorn look, certainly hinting that things are likely over between her and Frank. This shot is truly incredible and shows that visual skill possessed by Ross.

However, as mentioned before, the film is certainly unpolished. Though visually stylish, the story is pretty scattershot. The themes are good, but the film's plot is unfocused and jumps freely between Las Vegas and Paris. Much of the plot merely feels like an exercise in camera movement and utilizing various lighting and color schemes. While very pretty to look at, the plot is incredibly disposable and hardly engaging. The characters are pretty one-note and, while the themes are interesting, the characters are not terribly well-written. Poots' character is mostly just crazy and Shannon's just broods and tries to control Lola. While the acting is very good here, especially by Shannon, the plot and characters are incredibly underwritten. This leaves the film feeling quite hollow. It does not strike a balance between being stylish over substance as even the most stylish films have great substance via plot and characters, even if minimalist. Frank & Lola's plot is not minimalist, it is non-existent.

The directorial debut of Matthew Ross, Frank & Lola shows that Ross is a man to keep an eye on. Many great directors have an unpolished debut and, personally, I believe this to be Ross's. With terrific camera work via mirrors and voyeurism and themes of obsession, Ross takes a lot of cues from Hitchcock and De Palma in this film. While it is certainly a high bar to achieve, it is clear that he has great potential and I am eagerly anticipating his next work.

7/10 - A funny and cheesy piece of entertainment, Sleepless in Seattle is a timeless romance starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. Though the duo rarely share the screen, the moments they do and the moments they do not are filled with the air of being of a classic Hollywood romance. With two well matched leads and the film fully aware of its status as being a far-fetched Hollywood romantic film, Sleepless in Seattle is an irresistibly adorable film that is always entertaining. Striking a balance between grieving, romance, and comedy, it is clear that this film is by a woman, Nora Ephron. With the romance being found in the words, not in the looks, the film is a romantically written depiction of the true meaning of love.

In my review of Carol, I discussed the power of a look. In that film, Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara share a look that makes it feel as though time has stopped. The look in their eyes make it appear that all of their questions have been answered. Sleepless in Seattle contains a look of the same quality. With just fleeting moments of Sam (Tom Hanks) and Annie (Meg Ryan) sharing the screen, Ephron casts aside words. Instead, the power of love is found in a look and a touch. From there, magic happens and the romance in the film is cemented as being nothing less than magical.

However, equally important are the words. Hearing Sam, grieving from the loss of his wife, on a radio show, Annie is moved to tears by his words about his wife. Ephron's writing captures what women want: a man who loves them. Sam loved his wife and was not ashamed to admit it or tell the whole world about that love. Simple statements such as asking how long he had to explain what he loved most leave Annie and women across the country in a sea of tears. While the film can be a bit sexist as it shows women as being emotional wrecks and men as emotionally distant, it works because these moments are so exquisitely written from a romance standpoint. Ephron does not hide that she is trying to emulate classic 1940s/1950s romance films such as those with Cary Grant with repeated references to An Affair to Remember. Instead, she fully embraces the cheesiness and over-the-top romantic nature of those films. With audacious romantic set pieces such as the Empire State Building, absurd coincidences, and repeated references to fate, Sleepless in Seattle is cheesy as all hell. Fortunately, cheese is often delicious and this film certainly fits that bill with a gooey center that leaves you feeling happy. The dialogue in the film emphasizes that cheese with the characters merely dropping words that women would kill to hear from, apparently, any man.

The film's comedy is great, especially the running gag regarding An Affair to Remember. However, as always, Hanks is an able comic with great delivery of his various comedic lines. Ryan receives less comedic lines, but when given the chance, she nails the line. Yet, the biggest fault of the film is its treatment of Walter (Bill Pullman). Though romantic and funny, Walter is cast aside because he commits the cardinal sin of men: being boring. He is boring. He is allergic to everything, sure, but he is also boring. He is safe and hardly exciting. He may love Annie and be engaged to her, but she quickly loses interest purely through hearing Sam. There is no magic between her and Walter. However, the film seems to go out of its way to make you see how boring Walter is, even by picking on his name and serious nature. By the end, when Annie dumps him, he is so boring he just lets her go. He understands and allows her to leave. Walter may be a good guy who does not want to restrict her, even if he loves her, but man is he boring. By the end of the film, Sleepless in Seattle seems to want you to understand that Annie is not a bad person for emotionally cheating on Walter, but we know the truth. Your partner being boring is not an excuse to cheat on them, even if you did not do anything sexually to cheat on them. Just be upfront from the beginning and do not lead them on. The funny part is she was fine with Walter until she sensed a better option being available. Here, the film really struggles and fails to justify putting its leads together.

Fortunately, Sleepless in Seattle is a funny, romantic, and subtle piece of 1990s rom-com entertainment. With two well matched leads, the film is a vintage Hollywood romance film, even if it lacks scenes between the lovers and a great kiss finale. Through the lack of these, the film feels oddly authentic, even if its plot is absurd. Yet, Sleepless in Seattle is able to find realism by capturing the look, feel, and sound of true love from the very beginning of the film.

Spangle · 01-15-2017, 02:26 PM

9/10 - A thoroughly haunting film, Sisters is the seventh film by Brian De Palma. As with many of his later works, Sisters certainly emulates Hitchcock and is a by-product of De Palma's love of the "master of suspense". A psychological horror film, Sisters tells the story of one-half of a siamese twin who is accused of murder that was witnessed by a reporter through the window. Starring Margot Kidder in the lead role, De Palma emulates numerous Hitchcock films, but especially borrows from Rear Window and Psycho here. Heavily utilizing voyeurism, the film also introduces De Palma's split-screen effect to shockingly great effect with some of the best split-screens of his career. With a compelling and always changing plot, a tremendous score, and good acting, Sisters is an absolutely brilliant work.

One of the best elements here is the split-screen. Used multiple times, the highlight comes when Emil Breton (William Finley) is leaving Danielle Breton's (Kidder) apartment. On the other side of the screen, however, the cops are arriving with news reporter Grace Collier (Jennifer Salt) to explore what Grace thought she saw in the window. Ramping up the tension as you see Emil try to slip out as the cops enter, De Palma gets inventive with the characters alternating sides of the screen depending on where they are in relation to one another. This effect, while largely visual, is tremendous to look at and highlights what makes the tool as a whole so impactful. Alongside the brilliant score from Hitchcock composer Bernard Herrmann, Sisters is a truly thrilling film. The split-screen sets the tone visually in this regard as it creates a nervy and tense feeling for the audience, even if we are not rooting for Emil. The score is equally nervy and greatly unsettling throughout the film. Honestly, the murder scene would be hardly scary on its own. But, with Herrmann's score, it left me absolutely horrified with the unsettling notes Herrmann uses making a deep impact. Here, the score certainly seems akin to Psycho, which Herrmann also scored. As in that film, the score is not just background music. Instead, it is used to scare the audience just as much as the story and visuals.

Sisters heavily utilizes voyeurism as well with the central murder being witnessed through a window. Throughout the film, various characters look out the window and follow other characters. The beginning of the film introduces Danielle as a model on a game show called "Peeping Tom". There is an even a private detective who is hired to follow some characters. In this regard, the film heavily borrows from both Rear Window and Vertigo. One shot I noticed that was quite great was a slow pan from the window (the target of the voyeurism) to the car holding Grace and the private detective. In this way, the film highlights the two most important aspects of the film and voyeurism: to look and to be looked-at-ness. This is certainly another Hitchcock technique as in films such as Vertigo he first shows the window that is being looked through before then revealing who is looking. Psycho also has this to a degree when Milton Arbogast is ascending the stairs. We first see the target before the looker is revealed. For this film, it is merely a cool trick and highlights De Palma's inclination towards audacious camera movements.

However, the film's plot most closely resembles Psycho. Though it is Psycho by way of Rear Window and Vertigo in the camera movements, the film contains a lot of bipolar or split personality elements akin to Psycho. Here, the film can be truly haunting and keeps you guessing. Though the murder is the point at which the film jumps off into the second act and is why everything happens, it is hardly the purpose of the film. Instead, De Palma keeps you guessing with various twists that move the target of the conclusion throughout. In essence, he ensures that the film you expect is not the one you get. The bipolar or split personality portion of the plot is most certainly a gateway to these mysteries and subversions.

Finally, just some throwaway thoughts at the end that I found compelling. One, men are often attacked by the groins while De Palma has a fascination with Margot Kidder's breasts. While many men may share this obsession, the various shots exclusively of Emil caressing Danielle's boob is worthy of note. Viewed in conjunction with one another, De Palma certainly highlights what makes a man a man and what makes a woman a woman. There are also references to how Danielle may or may not be able to have a child. Thus, the attacks towards men's groins could be derived from Laura Mulvey's film theories and the desire of a woman to have a penis. Her inability to have a child steals away one of her defining characteristics as a woman, making her vagina inconsequential. Instead, her breasts remain the sole indicator that she is a woman. There is also an obsession in the film with phones. Having them be clean, use as an indicator during a break-in, calling the cops, or not calling Grace on the part of the detective. The obsession may be nothing, but occurs far too often to be not worthy of discussion. Finally, two interesting shots: the iris during the old video and the repeated use of shadows. Through the former, the film really highlights the voyeurism by putting us in the head of a select character.

As a whole, Sisters is an absolutely haunting experience. With a harrowing plot that continuously bucks expectations and a menacing score, Sisters immediately ranks among my favorites from De Palma. The film is a terrifying character study at times and a compelling descend into the face of insanity. One of his earlier works, Sisters shows much of the Hitchcock influence he would continue to use, but also highlights some of the best pieces of De Palma such as his camera movements and split-screen. All together, it combines for a truly great film.

[Image: 220px-Advise-%26-Consent-%281%29.jpg]

8/10 - It is a shame that this film has largely been forgotten by history and that this is just my second film by Otto Preminger. Having only seen Laura prior to this, which I adored and rank among my personal favorites, it is a shame and a shock that it took me this long to dive back into his filmography. Clearly, that should be my next project: the films of Otto Preminger. As for this one, Advise & Consent is a terrific work. A neo-noir political thriller, Advise & Consent concerns the confirmation of Robert Leffingwell (Henry Fonda) as the Secretary of State. Very relevant for now, Advise & Consent shows the behind the scenes wheeling and dealing that goes into the confirmation, as well as the lengths some senators are pushed to in order to secure the nomination. With a stacked cast, the film is incredibly well acted, well-written, and thoroughly compelling.

Chosen as the second film in this month's theme of "Power, Corruption, and Lies", it is clear why this film fits the bill. With Senator Brigham Anderson (Don Murray), the chair of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, being blackmailed into having his subcommittee consent to the nomination of Leffingwell, the stage is set. Of course, Leffingwell has his own closet of skeletons with a past connected to communist factions. With everybody having their own skeletons, the film is mostly about deceit and trying to keep those skeletons in the closet. Of course, this is all occurring alongside a crucial nomination with the President (Franchot Tone) on death's door and Vice President Harley Hudson (Lew Ayres) hardly seen as a foreign policy expert. With white lies abounding, the state of the Capitol is largely seen as being focused upon lying. Those who can lie and keep a secret are seen as a good senator and those who cannot keep their mouths shut are ignored.

The terrific cast is most certainly led by Charles Laughton. Appearing as Seb Cooley, the senior Senator from South Carolina and President Pro Tempore, Cooley is the kind of guy that Congress wishes would just die. He never shuts up, goes against party lines, and is vehemently against Leffingwell being the Secretary of State. Outspoken about this opinion, Cooley is infamous in the Senate and is always engrossing. From the subcommittee hearing to just sitting on a bench, Laughton is an intimidating figure and turns in a tremendous performance as the old curmudgeon of a senator. The film is equally engrossing in scenes between Leffingwell and his son. With his son undoubtedly looking up to his father as an example, he is shocked when his father lies and has secrets to hide about his part. Here, though these scenes are short, the film shows why it fits the theme of the month. In many ways, Leffingwell is showing to his son that you must lie to be in Washington, DC. Though his political stance is that change is coming and "outworn principles" must be left behind, one thing he seems to believe will stick around is lying. To be successful, telling lies (even when the person you are lying to knows you are lying) is merely part of the job and part of the craft. Throughout the film, characters are manipulated with Brig Anderson being a target of blackmail and manipulation in particular. Though gruesome and shady, this is merely part of the job. Fortunately, Advise & Consent argues that this should not be the case. Leffingwell is cast aside and Fred Van Ackerman (George Grizzard) is also cast aside. The President himself is cast aside in favor of Hudson, a forgotten but decent man. By casting aside those who lie and manipulate in favor promoting men such as Seb Cooley, the film shows that change can come. Cooley may be old and stuck in the past, but he is right that you must be fight against that which you do not believe in, a belief that Anderson shares as well. No matter the opposition, fighting for what is right is the correct choice. Advise & Consent hoists these men up and shows them to be in the right and, hopefully, the future. While Leffingwell may be an otherwise decent man, his penchant for lying is chastised throughout and results in him not succeeding.

A film that is incredibly well acted and is thoroughly compelling throughout, it is surprising to see it having been criticized harshly upon its release in 1962. I guess times change and it is time to give the deserved praise to Advise & Consent. With terrific acting, direction, and a thoroughly engaging plot, Advise & Consent is a great example of the power, corruption, and lies, in Washington DC and, along the way, creates tremendous characters to embody these elements.

7/10 - As with many of Brian De Palma's films - especially those released in the 21st Century - Passion was, well, divisive upon release. A remake of a French film, many critics derided this one as self-indulgent, trashy, and an imitation of De Palma's own work. While admittedly a bit self-indulgent and poorly plotted, Passion is just so much fun to experience and to see, it is hard not to champion it as unfairly maligned. Sure, it is exclusively style over substance, but never has style looked so good as in De Palma's Passion. Toying with ideas he has introduced before, Passion is a film about manipulation, power, dominance, and sex. Even more, it continues to show how influenced by Hitchcock this man is with a focus towards the end of pulling of the "perfect murder". A major theme in some of Hitchcock's works such as Shadow of a Doubt and Dial M for Murder, the same appears in this film. Even better, many of De Palma's trademark shots, such as split screens and oblique angles make triumphant appearances in this film. Maybe this one is not for everybody, but since I happen to love the work of De Palma, I ate this one up with a spoon.

One of the best elements of this film is how it crafts its perfect murder. Not revealing its tricks until the very end, even the audience is fooled in this one as De Palma uses his split-screen to manipulate and confuse the audience. On one side, we see Isabelle James (Noomi Rapace) at the ballet. On the other, we see Christine Stanford (Rachel McAdams) at home. The split-screen in this film is particularly great as Isabelle's side slides onto the frame and Christine's slides off and then back on. As magnificently choreographed as always, De Palma adds another wrinkle by using voyeurism in Christine's side. With her walking around a hallway in her home and being peered at through a small gap in a door, we see just through the gap with black all around. A point of view shot in this instance, it also serves to obscure who is there with her and further confuse and mislead the audience. Though we know who we can rule out, it hardly limits the options and has the ability to keep the audience continuously on edge. This may be a bit of fan service and self-indulgent as he emulates some of his best works in this moment, but it is not ineffective. Just because it is a trademark does not make it wrong and I love the split-screens in his films with this scene being an example of why. Tense, thrilling, and keeping the audience completely on edge, this is a great example of why it is a terrific tool.

De Palma is also known for his oblique angles at times and Passion features a lot of them. Many times, they can be a bit more subtle, but here they take center stage. As things begin to spiral out of control at the office. Showing the balance of power in certain scenes, one of my favorites is an oblique angle shot of Christine's offices. With shadows pouring into the room, Christine's back is to us as Isabelle's walks into the office. Not expecting the cold response from Christine, scene is chilly and uncomfortable, in large part because of the shot. Every scene with an oblique angle shot, such as the sexual harassment scene between Christine and Dani (Karoline Herfurth), are unsettling. While occasionally thrilling in these moments, they are mostly just hard to watch and a brilliant piece of filmmaking.

Of course, these scenes are also bolstered by the use of shadows. Often used to trap in characters, many characters are trapped here, both literally and figuratively. Christine is trapped by Isabelle. Isabelle is trapped by Dani. The inspector is trapped by lies. Dirk Harriman (Paul Anderson) is trapped by Christine and Isabelle. Shadows and bars adorn them all and lock them up in their visual prison before some of them wind up in actual prison. Along with the split-screens and oblique angles, the shadows bless Passion with an incredible visual style.

An erotic thriller, Passion may not be one of De Palma's best works, but its aesthetic is undeniable. Though its substance pales in comparison to those in his best works, the plot is still quite compelling and twisty, even if it makes very little sense and has major plotholes. The plot also suffers from an overreliance on dream sequences and fake outs that hurt the suspense and thrills, rather than fostering either. Yet, the camera work here is tremendous and the more I watch De Palma's films, the more I have come to appreciate that his style and camera movements are the main draw of his films, not necessarily just the plot. Passion is the epitome of this, hence its negative reception. Thus, for those who enjoy De Palma and his trademarks as a director, Passion should exceed expectations.

5/10 - In the 21st century, John Cusack and Nicolas Cage do not purposefully make a good film. Instead, they accidentally stumble onto a set where people are making a good film. The Frozen Ground is not necessarily a good film, but it is an okay one. Telling the real story about the hunt for brutal serial killer Robert Hansen (Cusack), the film fits him against John Halcombe (Cage), the cop who tracked him down. A pretty straight forward police procedural movie, The Frozen Ground is a largely entertaining and compelling film that is just too cliche and lacking in mystery to be a truly good film.

With Cage and Cusack both turning in good performances, this straight-to-DVD release is off to a good start already. Cage is largely a normal person here with a wife who gets two scenes and is a hard nosed cop who loves his job and family. Typical, but Cage does well. He is a great actor and this material is still beneath him, but it is closer than his traditional fare. Cusack, meanwhile, plays a well adjusted psycho. Seen as a normal guy with a Christian wife and two kids, Hansen is a regular guy except when he looks for oral sex. At this point, he is a monster and hungry for hunting prostitutes. Cusack plays this difference incredibly well, using a largely cool and icy demeanor in both. He seems to be going through the motions and is only in his element when killing somebody. Cusack, in the violent moments, keeps this icy demeanor but has a subtle twisted and dark element added that clues you into just how demented of a person Robert Hansen was.

However, The Frozen Ground is largely unchallenging. Halcombe protects a young prostitute and victim of Hansen, Cindy Paulson (Vanessa Hudgens), with cliched scenes involving her pimp (50 Cent) and a strip club. These moments add nothing to the film other than an excuse to hire girls with large breasts to appear nude briefly in the film. Otherwise, nothing is added to the film, even including a scene where Cindy sees Robert in the club. Maybe it was a real scenario, but of course he is scared of him and that is the only thing the scene communicates. The case is largely compelling, however, and scenes of Cage and Sgt. Lyle Haugsven (Dean Norris) tracking Hansen. With clues and close calls along the way, the film is largely engaging in these moments. Sure, it is stereotypical, but as somebody who mildly enjoys films of this type, it does work.

What does not work, however, is the camera. Director Scott Walker channels that scene of Liam Neeson jumping over a fence in Taken 3 during any scene with a degree of chaos. This includes the beginning and it made me want to question my decision to watch the film at all. Good directors do not need to use nearly as many cuts in quick succession as Walker does, leading me to conclude that the average status of the film is likely a fluke.

With a largely compelling true story to tell, The Frozen Ground is a cold and icy film about a cold and icy man. While largely feeling like an episode of Forensic Files or Deadline, the film is pretty engaging due to very good performances from Nicolas Cage and John Cusack. Honestly, they must have been so appalled by the fact that the film turned out okay they had to fire their agents. How could they not give a horrible script instead? Compared to their usual films, The Frozen Ground is like an Oscar winner. Compared to other films, however, it is merely a run-of-the-mill true crime story that has good acting and follows the cliches closely enough to become passable entertainment.

8/10 - A classic film noir, The Big Heat stands as the first film I have seen by legendary director Fritz Lang. This seems to be a constant trend of late where I am just beginning my journey with various directors. Have to start somewhere and at some point, I guess. Starring Glenn Ford, Gloria Grahame, and Lee Marvin, The Big Heat tells the story of Sgt. Dave Bannion (Ford) and his investigation of a cop's suicide that leads to him brushing shoulders with a crime syndicate that runs the town. Quintessential noir, the film is not strictly a detective story and instead follows Bannion investigating and revealing a case beneath the surface. For the audience, we are more focused on the murder - which is the beginning of the film - and seeing how it all comes together. In actuality, the murder is just one piece of it that comes together in the conclusion. However, The Big Heat is held back by a slow paced opening and an ending that is far too neat for how messy the plot actually was.

Compelling, mysterious, and suspenseful at all turns, The Big Heat's plot constantly leaves the audience guessing. By the end, when everything comes together, it is fun to see what the importance of the letter is and why it was significant. By having Bannion investigate the death and continuously think the calls he receives are about the suicide, it misleads the audience. Throughout the film, it is confusing because we saw him kill himself. How could it not be suicide? However, various characters along the way seem to think it was not suicide, while the wife is trying to put the cops off the scent. This leaves a film that is hidden in the bushes. Fritz Lang is trying to pull one over on the audience by seemingly obsessing with the suicide. By the end, we realize the role the suicide plays and it is hardly the focus of the story, merely just one action pertaining to the crime syndicate.

The film is also uncharacteristically brutal. With politician and syndicate member Vince Stone (Lee Marvin) throwing coffee on his girlfriend's face, the film really cements itself as far more violent than many films during the Hays code era. Though the camera focuses solely on another coffee jar by the wall during the scene, we still hear Debby (Gloria Grahame) scream. For audiences in 1953, this scene had to be absolutely shocking and it is surprising to see it get through the sensors. This is hardly the only case where there is violence here though with Stone putting his cigarette out on a girl and woman being killed in a car explosion. The film also introduces a build-up to a sex scene between Bannion and Debby, only for Bannion to call it off before anything happens. However, the sex is certainly heavily implied as being set to happen. Certainly risque and more risky than other films of this era, The Big Heat has a penchant for violence that is uncharacteristic of many older films.

However, the film is also really a lesson in not succumbing to revenge and violence. All those who commit acts of violence are killed or sent to jail. All those who abuse their power by being corrupt are sent to jail. Though a bit neat, it is a powerful tale as even Debby is killed for succumbing to revenge and acts of violence. On the other side of the coin, Bannion is shown toiling with whether to avenge his wife or not. He wants to kill Vince Stone and those associated with him, but manages to rise above his anger. For this, Bannion is rewarded by being re-hired by the police force and cracking the case. Rather than merely killing those responsible, Bannion is celebrated for getting justice in a wholesome fashion.

With classic noir chiraoscuro lighting, The Big Heat is a gorgeous looking film. With shadows adorning the vast majority of shots in the film, it creates a creepy and unsettling atmosphere that can often keep you on edge. A great example is when Bannion shows up to his brother-in-law's apartment and is held at gunpoint upon entering the building. He is then led up the stairs before it is realized that this is all a mistake. Covered in shadows throughout the scene, the scene is incredibly tense and suspenseful as you think that Bannion's daughter has most certainly been kidnapped (she was staying with the brother-in-law).

All of this said, The Big Heat is a bit slow to begin with and the ending is far too neat. Though a morality play, it feels as though the film needed to be far messier at the end. Fortunately, the middle of the film is so brilliant, it is impossible to write the film off at all. A classic for a reason, The Big Heat features great acting, direction, cinematography, and is an interesting film to begin my exploration of Fritz Lang's filmography.

5/10 - Part fairy tale, part coming of age film, part road film, part revenge thriller, part fish out of water, part spy thriller, and part superhero origin, Hanna suffers from having too many parts and influences. Divulging in all of them with fairy tale references around every corner, a girl learning who she is and growing up, a girl traveling, a girl hunting the woman who killed her parents, a girl adjusting to a new environment, a CIA agent hunting a rogue CIA agent, and a supergirl coming to terms with her abilities, this movie is an absolute mess. Tonally uneven and all over the place plotwise, the final product is an amalgamation of so many different influences, director Joe Wright struggles to keep them together and have them be coherent. Even when they are coherent, they are so obvious and hamfisted, the film fails to be enjoyable. Fortunately, stylish editing, action scenes, and cinematography elevate the film to be a visual feast, but its story is so weak and obvious, it is hard to focus on the beauty.

One of the major elements that caused me great strain was the ending, which is a book end of the beginning. In the beginning, we see Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) hunt and kill a moose. However, her arrow narrowly misses its heart so she has to chase it down and shoot it in the head. This same sequence occurs again at the end, except it is no longer a moose. I joked to myself that the film was going to have say the same lines in the beginning when the sequence began and then it actually did. I was already struggling to enjoy the film at this point, but this obvious and predictable conclusion really bothered me and cemented this as nothing but an average film. This trend obviousness continues with ever present fairy tale references such as Marissa Wiegler (Cate Blanchett), the evil witch and CIA agent, walking out of a wolf's head in an abandoned amusement park. A man who helps Hanna is most certainly out of Alice in Wonderland with mushrooms adorned his home and a bubbly personality, as well as a flower on his shirt. In moments such as these, it feels as though Wright had just binge watched a series of fairy tales and decided it was time to copy them all to one film. By the end of the film, it feels like a hollow mishmash of references, rather than a film.

These contrivance and cliches continue as the film borrows from all the genres it pretends to try and be. From a girl experiencing a lesbian encounter (it is unspoken, but it no doubt is), learning about her past, and facing challenges (except the challenges here are murderers) to her father being a rogue CIA agent with a superhuman kid that he tries to protect from those who wish to exploit her, Hanna is very cliched. It disguises this by using so many cliches and typical premises and then combining them into one, which allows the film to appear original. Unfortunately, it is anything but with each beat being incredibly predictable and telegraphed. Though Hanna is a capable fighter with punches coming from every direction, Wright shows that he is only capable of slow and obvious punches to the face. Once you start blocking these punches, he has no idea where to go.

One of the reasons why this film may have left me feeling so cold is the dreamlike atmosphere. I often love dreamlike atmospheres such as that in Drive (which has also been called a fairy tale), but films such as Drive become surreal. There are moments where the director winks at you and lets you know it is a fairy tale. Wright does not do this. He wants to have his cake and eat it too with a dreamlike atmosphere and a gritty and realistic film. This leaves the film feeling tonally jumbled even before we begin seeing the cliches and various genres the film wants to operate within.

The film does elevate itself a bit though with great acting. Saoirse Ronan is a brilliant actress as she has shown in films such as Atonement, The Grand Budapest Hotel, and Brooklyn. Hanna joins those films in showcasing her tremendous ability. Playing a cold and calculating super soldier in this film, Ronan is steely throughout and, yet, in little flashes exposes her youth and humanity. Simply a young girl dealt an impossible hand, Hanna is incredibly sympathetic, even if she is so violent and brutal. Ronan captures this incredibly well. As the evil witch, Cate Blanchett is brilliant as always. If she ever turned in a bad performance, it would be noteworthy because she has never not wowed me in a role. This film is no exception. Eric Bana is largely ineffectual with him merely channeling Arnold Schwarzenegger with his accent. I kept waiting for him to yell "get to the choppa'" with the way he was speaking. Of course, acting aside, the characters are quite lackluster. With unclear motivations and back stories, the writing is quite weak in this department as well. In particular, Marissa Wiegler is a horrible villain bolstered by Blanchett's performance. Her motivations are unclear throughout, other than her wanting Hanna dead.

A tonally jumbled, uneven, and hamfisted story about a girl who must overcome the forces of evil to enter adulthood, the film tackles so many elements it is hard to enjoy. Though its action set pieces and cinematography have moments of brilliance, Joe Wright is simply not talented enough to pull this off. Instead, the final product is a film that is unsubtle and in your face about its story. Mostly an action fairy tale, Hanna may appeal to those who enjoy action films, but this film largely left me feeling unengaged and unattached. With bad writing in both the plot and the characters, Hanna is far too unfocused and scattershot to be a good film and can be classified as merely diverting entertainment.

8/10 - A tale of decadence and elegance, Marie Antoinette is not your run-of-the-mill biopic period film. Instead, director Sofia Coppola opts to show how to properly light up the night in 18th century France. Complementing the constant party and gossip is modern pop rock that infuses the film with a modern take that matches the extravagant unconventionality of Marie Antoinette. Right down to this music, this film is about the life of Marie Antoinette. Guillotined as part of the French Revolution, Coppola's film ends before this and includes no addendum at the end of the film revealing the fate of its characters. While the film itself is hardly historically accurate, this move is deliberate and underscores what Coppola's film is about: her life, not Marie Antoinette's death or reality. She merely takes moments of her life, exaggerates them, or creates them in order to paint a picture of who Marie Antoinette was, both the good and the bad.

Decried by French critics for not criticizing Marie Antoinette's (Kirsten Dunst) life of luxury, it only feels fair that the film does not do this. Criticized endlessly in her life for her expensive taste, inability to consummate her marriage (not her fault), and being an Austrian in France, it is about time somebody not overtly criticize the woman. Whether she was nice or not, she certainly had her positive elements and, in the film, was dedicated to her people and her children. She never acted within hostility towards others and did not partake in the catty gossip that permeated the palace. Now, of course, the film does show her decadence, vapidness, and affair, which cast a shadow on her. While it does not chastise these actions, their inclusion shows that the film is fair and balanced when it comes to its main character.

Of course, the film is not completely fair when it comes to the people of France. But, honestly, who cares? Marie Antoinette is a film about flair and party. Sofia Coppola embraces this by ignoring history and focusing upon the style of the film and the lavish costume design. Decked head to toe in diamonds, this is a film about excess. Described as a satire or a comedy, the film embraces this with its tongue placed firmly along its cheek when critiquing palace life throughout. For example, a scene where Kirsten Dunst stands naked awaiting somebody to dress her, but she must be dressed by the highest ranking person in the room. Unfortunately, this keeps changing as more and more people walk into the room. Incredibly comical, this scene underscores the comedic tone of the film, which is subtle but ever present. At all times, Coppola eschews the serious tone of many historical films in favor of a light take on a serious subject. Often times, this will fail, but it somehow finds a way to work in this film. Thus, by embracing the decadence of the royal family, Coppola finds absurdity through the parallel created by their extravagance and the poverty of the French people and the debt situation.

Visually, Marie Antoinette is stunning. With breathtaking cinematography that made me physically angry with how beautiful it was, the film's visuals are tremendous. Repeated shots of the stairs leading up to the palace, long shots from and of the palace, and shots of men riding horses from a distance, this film is incredibly gorgeous. Of course, what helps this is the lavish color scheme. Blending a variety of colors, the colors in the film are largely introduced by the costumes. With elegantly crafted costumes that burst with flair and color, Marie Antoinette is a gorgeously dressed film that visually defines the wealth and power of the French royal family at the time. By the end, when the French people revolt, it is not hard to see how they could find issue with the family's display of wealth.

One of the more compelling elements of this film, however, is the gossip. With Marie Antoinette constantly surrounded by the catty gossip of the palace. The impact of this is a claustrophobic environment that shows the shallowness of the courtroom. As she and other women of the court are constantly under examination and inspection with absurd expectations abounding, the film finds even more entertainment. With the gossip feeling oddly modern and akin to a high school clique, this is where Coppola turns the film almost into a historical Mean Girls. Those surrounding Marie Antoinette are more cruel and judgmental towards her and others than the people who eventually would have her beheaded in the revolution. Of course, there is also comedy in these high expectations as the King (Rip Torn) has a mistress and she is forced upon the women of the court. The women are appalled by her and her conduct, even though they themselves have sex and there is a constant obsession with getting Marie Antoinette to consummate her marriage with Louis XVI (Jason Schwartzman). Coppola does not shy away from showing this absurdity of expectation with Louis being the one afraid to have sex and all other women unable to keep their hands off of a woman. The King himself is so addicted that even on his death bed when trying to be forgiven for his sins, he tries to see his mistress one last time. There is also great comedy in the lack of intimacy between Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI while in the bedroom, especially compared to her sexual chemistry with Count Fersen (Jamie Dornan) at the end of the film. There are multiple times where Coppola just puts the camera on the naked backside or slightly covered up Dunst while she is wearing thigh-high socks. It is as if she keeps showing her and asks the audience, "Really? People think it is her fault that Louis will not have sex with her?" Of course, if the film was based in reality, it would have been made clear that they were just teenagers and Louis was far too shy and awkward to do anything. With Schwartzman and Dunst in the roles, however, Coppola mines comedy out of the situation where Dunst should be every man's dream, but Schwartzman's Louis cannot convince himself to consummate the marriage.

A subtly comedic and extravagant film, Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette is just as decadent and lavish as its titular character. Infusing the stuffy historical period drama genre with a light, airy, and decidedly modern comedy-drama take, Coppola's film has been divisive. As anticipated, many critics did not like the modern take and complementary pop rock music. For those that do, however, the modern music merely adds to the appeal of the film. As mentioned, it certainly makes sense too with Marie Antoinette's having a certain flair and modernity that it is hard to define. Had Coppola stifled her in a tight and proper period drama, her film would have suffered and failed to capture her character properly. As it stands, the film may not be particularly accurate, but its aesthetic, costumes, cinematography, and music, all feel as though it captures the elegance, beauty, and flair of Marie Antoinette better than any facts could.

Spangle · 01-15-2017, 02:29 PM

6/10 - A stylish, yet flawed, romantic crime comedy, Duplicity is a mixed bag. With compelling twists and a great look at corporate espionage, this film from director Tony Gilroy is bogged down by a nonlinear narrative and a lackluster romance. As a result, the plot becomes hard to follow when the film jumps from the past to the present to the past constantly and, towards the end, stops helping you figure out where each scene is taking place. Even worse, these flashbacks are always dry, humorless, and chemistry-less when they put together former MI6 agent Ray Koval (Clive Owen) and former CIA agent Claire Stenwick (Julia Roberts). Lovers who work for competing companies, the film details the efforts of both sides to outwit the other and beat them in the marketplace. Of course, that is when the couple are not having sex in an exotic location.

For the positives, as a business major, I loved the corporate espionage. Okay, business is really, really boring. However, this film triggered why I am okay with working in this world. The anticipation of new products, studying the competition, and going to war, are all incredibly compelling to watch unfold. Of course, real life pales in comparison and is largely quite dull. Duplicity, however, manages to make a shareholder meeting completely compelling. With the cure for baldness on the way, who will be the first to the marketplace? Only time will find out, but there are moles and spies on both sides that make the battle between former business partners, portrayed by Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti, the highlight of the film. Honestly, Owen and Roberts should be cut out of this film in favor of the more compelling story. Two former business partners going to war with one another over a breakthrough with corporate espionage and a fractured relationship between them. For those that have seen this film, tell me that is not the more compelling tale?

Unfortunately, strewn in between these great sections are a lot of romantic moments between spies that merely further complicate the film. Having them repeat lines, jumping back in time to just show them have sex, showing their distrust, and showing some of their planning, Duplicity struggles to bring life to its romantic moments. While its crime elements are top-notch and slick, the romance is lifeless. Owen and Roberts try, but putting two people that audiences find appealing together and hoping it will work is a bad idea. As a result, the romance here is largely unappealing and passionless. While some moments do add to the final reveal, the film could cut out all of the romance scenes, aside from the few where they plot their own espionage, and lose nothing. As for the comedy here, it largely fails and I had to keep reminding myself that it was supposed to be a comedy.

With the romance and comedy elements failing, it leaves just the crime portion as being any good. As mentioned, this crime portion does succeed terrifically with a twisty and unpredictable sequence of events. Here, Wilkinson and Giamatti nail their limited roles and demand to be explored deeper. Clive Owen and Julia Roberts also do quite well in the film, even in the romance scenes. However, they both really soar when being calculating and cold spies. In particular, Owen is great using his charisma and slick nature to woo marks and complete tasks. In addition to the fun corporate espionage, watching this duo do their job is worth the watch and thoroughly entertaining.

Stylistically, the film is pretty compelling. It is hard to describe the technique Tony Gilroy uses when flashing back or jumping forward again. It is not a split screen, rather he takes a shot and begins to slowly shrink the frame. Other shots may appear and one will then grow. It is pretty unique and not too bad to look at. Honestly, I am hard pressed to think of a film off the top of my head with a similar technique and I am not sure what it would be called. That said, I just wish it did not signal my least favorite moments were about to happen again or else I would have really loved the technique.

A messy and flawed romantic crime comedy, Duplicity is not really funny or romantic. However, its crime and spy elements are so good, it allows me to look past its flaws to a degree. With great style and the assured hand of Gilroy, Duplicity may be a bit contrived and cliched, but it remains unpredictable through unforeseen twists that show just how dirty this corporate rivalry has become.

4/10 - Made for peanuts back in 1955, Killer's Kiss is the second film by legendary director Stanley Kubrick. Though more adept than many sophomore features, Killer's Kiss is simply just dreadfully dull. God is merciful because this film is just 67 minutes, but even then, it is a very long 67 minutes. I have seen films that are over three hours that have gone by quicker than Killer's Kiss. Now, why does the film feel so long? The pacing of course is very slow, but the plot is incredibly weak. Feeling more appropriate for a short film, the film is underplotted and struggles to hit the 67 minute mark. Kubrick tries to pad the story with some extra scenes, but even then, nothing helps the film to move along any quicker. Even when the plot is occurring, the film is hardly engaging and pretty run-of-the-mill for a film noir. The ending, though unwanted by Kubrick, is also pretty bad with the happy ending, but the scene proceeding it is hardly better. In the climax, Davey Gordon (Jamie Smith) and Vincent Rapallo (Frank Slivera) face off in a mannequin warehouse. Using an axe as a weapon, Vincent faces a barrage of mannequin parts from Davey. This sequence is far more comical than suspenseful and takes far too long to progress.

The film's plot is not bolstered by the acting either, which is awful across the board. At no point do these largely unknown actors justify being in a Kubrick film. However, what does elevate the film is the camera work. There are more than a few shots that hint at Kubrick's potential here. One such example is a shot down the stairs of Vincent's club where you can see out the windows in the doors. A terrific shot, it also hinted at Kubrick's obsession with symmetry, with the shot being entirely symmetrical. A later shot in a tunnel channels classic film noir with Davey running into the tunnel and the scene being lit solely from the natural lighting outside of the tunnel.

However, Killer's Kiss is a largely disappointing experience. Dull, slow, and too long, the film hints at Kubrick's promise, but can probably be skipped in favor of his more accomplished and seasoned works. As it stands, Killer's Kiss would probably have been forgotten if not for its director.

8/10 - As someone who is deeply grossed and freaked out by birds, Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds is a tough watch. Many people need to be convinced that something is wrong with these birds in order to believe that they are vicious killer. Not me. I know that they are merely rats with wings who should be exterminated just like the vermin they really are. Personal prejudice aside, of course, birds are vile creatures and Hitchcock's film pulls back the veil to reveal the true, heinous, and cruel nature of these beasts. Starring Tippi Hedren and Rod Taylor, this film is showing its age spots with some questionable bird effects. However, the fear it conjures will never age with terrific sound effects and a terrifying premise sure to continue to sway public opinion against birds for the rest of time. It is only through public service announcements such as this film that the birds will be defeated and I encourage everybody to watch this fatally important film.

With relatively solid performances from Hedren and Taylor, with moments where they slip into B-movie quality acting, The Birds is a terrifying film. Telling the story of birds who attack a small coastal city in California named Bodega Bay, the film is very much one about fearing the unknown. With many people not knowing that birds act like this, it takes everybody by surprise in the small town. However, Hitchcock was one of the first people to really give birds credit for how smart they can be, as though birds admittedly do not attack people, they also peanuts for brains. The scenes of attacks are always incredibly menacing, but are bolstered by the sound. Sometimes using a suspenseful and thrilling score, the film equally relies upon absolute silence aside from bird chirps. With the film laced with bird chirps throughout, Hitchcock replaces "what goes bump in the night" with "what goes chirp outdoors". Constantly surrounded by these violent aviators, the characters in The Birds have nowhere to hide, as shown the sound effects. No matter where a character goes, birds follow. If there is silence, it is purely an indicator that things are set to get worse at the beaks of these winged demons.

The "master of suspense" is in complete control throughout creating a thrilling atmosphere throughout as a result of the aforementioned score and bird sound effects. Lacing every movement with incredible amounts of dread, it leaves the audience wondering where the next attack will come from. The film also introduces some surprising gore with characters being pecked by birds, including small children, and a man having his eyes plucked out of his head (we only see the aftermath). Shocking for the time, this film had to have really stunned audiences in 1963. In 2017, the film is still shocking with Hitchcock unafraid to put his stars in imminent danger and creating a well paced and thrilling film. Always leading up to the climax, the build-up of the film sets the tone and the scene perfectly and the pay-off of the film is terrific as it pits Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren) and Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) right up against the assailants from hell.

Of course, the film has aged with the acting slipping into too much melodrama at times and the bird effects being quite lackluster. You can always tell they are puppets and it is quite jarring and near comical at times to watch. Of course, the good part is that Hitchcock's penchant for suspense has not aged, thus even when the effects fail, the atmosphere and tension never cease. That said, it is worth noting as the film may fail to scare some audiences due to these aged special effects. If you are able to suspend belief a bit and just go with it, however, then the film will remain as terrifying as ever.

The Birds also further dives into Hitchcock's Oedipal obsession. Psycho is well known for this with Norman Bates embodying both himself and his dead mother. The Birds, however, certainly has a lot of this as well between Mitch Brenner and his mother Lydia (Jessica Tandy). Disapproving of every girl Mitch dates, it is speculated that Lydia is afraid to be alone and Melanie declares that Lydia is possessive of Mitch. Oedipus is even referenced in the film in regards to the relationship Lydia has with Mitch, especially after the death of her husband and Mitch's father. While her fear of abandonment is pretty common, it is worth noting and shows Hitchcock's interest in examining the subject. Honestly, the film could be seen, to a degree, as being a depiction of Lydia fighting against Melanie, who Mitch fancies quite a bit. Though the birds attack other people as well, its kills include an ex-girlfriend of Mitch's. Additionally, they only begin to attack once Melanie shows up in town. It may be coincidental, but the birds also specifically begin attacking her and are constantly showing up wherever she is. Of course, she is the star, so it is possible there is nothing here, but it strikes me that Hitchcock may used the bird attacks to symbolize the motherly instinct to attack and reject the woman her son loves. By the time Lydia begins to accept Melanie towards the end of the film (following the final attack on her), the devious animals have ceased attacking and are instead just gathering and waiting for the next victim. As such, it can be surmised that Lydia has accepted Melanie and no longer has it out for her.

A terrifying classic of a horror film, The Birds may be a bit dated for some, but for those willing to indulge its 1960s horror instincts, it is a deeply rewarding film. Scary, suspenseful, and thrilling, The Birds reveals the true nature of birds to the viewing public and needs to be heeded as the warning that it is before it comes to life. Birds must be stopped, one way or the other.

9/10 - Starring a crazy, but close and fractured Spanish family, this one hit me pretty good. Though my family is not Spanish (Costa Rican, so they do speak the language), this film explores sexual abuse, death, and loneliness. Though my family does not have a history of sexual abuse (as far I know), the elements regarding the death of Irene (Carmen Maura) and her return to care for her sister and how she appears to her daughters to tie up loose ends, is entirely moving. On my Costa Rican side, the one I am far closer with, my mother and her seven sisters lost their mother back in the 1990s. I do not remember her, but they often speak of her, the food she made, and how she will often appear to them in dreams. As far as I know, she is not appearing to right any wrongs, but all the same, I can see the parallels. Similarly, most have had some rough histories with men from abuse, adultery, or pure laziness. Thus, the complaints regarding abuse (sexual in the film) and adultery by the women in this film also further hits home. All told, Volver was a film made for my enjoyment and Pedro Almodovar knocked it out of the park. My second film from him, this is a welcomed film after All About My Mother was good, but left me feeling cold. Volver is very much the opposite with brilliant direction, acting, and a heartfelt and thoroughly moving story.

Part magic realism, tragedy, and farce, Volver has a bit of an absurd plot at times, but can be boiled down to: a woman, Irene, comes to visit her two daughters, Raimunda (Penelope Cruz) and Soledad (Lola Duenas). Initially taking care of her dying sister (her daughter's aunt), Irene is here to make amends with Raimunda. Though she was always tight with Soledad, Raimunda had drifted away from her in her teens for reasons unknown to her. However, upon Irene's death, she learns why and shows up to make amends. Initially nervous to see her, Raimunda eventually finds out her mother is with Soledad anyways and what ensues is a phenomenal finale to the film. The final quarter of the film is the strongest section without question as it is the most emotional portion. In particular, the final line where Raimunda is excited to have her mother back and finally gets to talk to her, absolutely ruined me. Thinking of my mother and aunts when they merely get to see their mother in a dream, it was very easy for me to fall in love with this section of the film and the film as a whole.

This power of the mother-daughter relationship is the real strength of this film. While watching the scenes in the restaurant between Raimunda and the film crew, I was confused as to how it played into the film as a whole. Obviously, there is great comedy as there is someone hidden in the freezer in the back, but her success and camaraderie with the crew does not add much. That is, of course, until she decides to sing. In the scene with the musicians on the crew and her singing a song that her mother taught her, while her mother is hiding from her in a car, is incredible. Moving, emotional, and powerful, the emotion is clear on both the faces of Cruz and Maura. They really nail this scene and make it one of the most powerful definitions of the relationship between two. Even more, the song itself is about the memories and pain a person carries with them at night that keeps them awake. The connection to the plot and hidden pasts of the characters is clear, which makes the song a tremendous selection and the scene as a whole becomes truly wondrous.

In full transparency, I always love films about death. I am probably weird, but they are always so moving and powerful. Volver is no exception and underscores why good films about the subject work so well. The film underscores the feelings of loneliness, grieving, and healing, people go through. The film also really underscores the beauty of life, in spite of pain, and the beauty of death, in spite of the reason. Death is not be feared, but here, it shows this odd beauty as well as the darkness it can create, or turns it into comedy. This may seem odd, but it does work quite well for Volver and Almodovar assures that the moments are given their due weight.

After not loving my first entry in his filmography, Volver made me understand the love for Pedro Almodovar. Moving, emotional, and powerful, Volver's great accomplishment is its mother-daughter relationship, the regret, death, and lost time. Thanks to terrific acting, directing, and writing, Volver really hits home at times and is a truly tremendous experience. Though occasionally slow and a little bloated in spots, the finale and overall film make these flaws incredibly easy to look past.

8/10 - One of my favorite sub-genres has to be the high budget adult action comedy. Unfortunately, it is mostly dead nowadays aside from the release of films such as The Nice Guys this year. They do not resort to low brow humor, put the characters in adult situations, and are perfect examples of the fact that even adults can appreciate some well executed explosions. Plus, there is just something right about Angelina Jolie in a dominatrix outfit snapping a guy's neck. In Mr. & Mrs. Smith, director Doug Liman takes a married couple and makes them both assassins who have been contracted to kill one another. With well executed action set pieces and great comedy, the film's appeal largely rides on it being about a married couple assigned to kill one another. As such, they try to outwit and outsmart another while doing doing so as a married couple living in the suburbs, thus they fight about curtains, comment about homegoods stores, eat bad dinners together, and the man breaks stuff in the house accidentally. For many, this humor may become tiresome, but it always felt fresh and acted as a larger comment on marriage, rather than just a source of comedy.

Pairing together Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie in the film that brought them together, Mr. & Mrs. Smith depicts a married couple that is going through a rough patch. With a lack of sex and chemistry at the time, the duo are having troubles. What better way to fix a marriage than by blowing up your home and trying to kill one another in the process? Honestly, it seemed pretty cathartic and makes you wonder why more couples do not try this strategy out. While a bit absurd, Liman laces the action and silly plot with witty and quick jabs and banter between the couple. As a result, their antics become incredibly endearing and deeply funny. Of course, this would not be possible without top-notch performances from Pitt and Jolie who not only have great chemistry with one another, but have tremendous charisma.

Of course, it is hard to defend this film. Inherently stupid and over-the-top, Mr. & Mrs. Smith is hardly a classic. That said, it is a terrific blend of action and comedy. For somebody that has been accused of hating fun, this review should defeat those accusations. At the end of the day, I like good action and good comedy. If an action scene thrills me and jokes make me laugh, then I am satisfied. While its gags are silly and it has far too many explosions, its tongue-in-cheek action scenes that parody marriage, relationship warfare, and other action films, it was hard to not fall into the film's charm. Its jokes are well-written, smart, and incredibly witty. They may be a bit silly, but they are never trying too hard, being raunchy for the sake of being raunchy, or giving into lowest common denominator type humor (Deadpool or Kingsman as negative examples here). Instead, it takes an adult approach and finds a balance in appealing to both adults and action junkies along the way.

Hardly the pinnacle of cinema, Mr. & Mrs. Smith is a fun, well plotted, funny, and action-packed summer action flick. With top-notch performances from the always charismatic Brangelina, the film has a lot of fun with its over-the-top action, well-timed comedy, and smart/witty jokes. Gleefully boisterous and absurd throughout, the film's pacing is excellent and keeps the speed at cruise control. It is never distractingly fast, nor is it ever too slow. Instead, it flies by at the right speed to allow full enjoyment of its infectious energy and joy. While many do not like Mr. & Mrs. Smith, count me as one of its supporters, though its flaws are certainly readily apparent and the film is hardly as well manicured as its stars.

[Image: Another_woman_moviep.jpg]

8/10 - One of the most divisive films in Woody Allen's filmography, Another Woman has been criticized for being too similar to Ingmar Bergman's Wild Strawberries. Some critics, however, have praised the film and call it one of Allen's best works. Personally, I find myself siding more with the latter. Though I would not say it is one of his best films, it is still a tremendous character study of a broken woman going through a mid-to-late life crisis. A character study with a thin plot, Another Woman is pretty simple. Marion Post (Gena Rowlands), a professor and writer, sublets a small apartment away from her husband in order to write her next book. However, her concentration is broken when she realizes that she hear patients talking to the psychiatrist next door. Initially trying to stop the noise, Marion gives into temptation and stumbles across a young woman, Hope (Mia Farrow), whose problems awaken in her this crisis. Incredibly well-acted, well-written, and well-directed, Another Woman is a simple, yet effective character study.

Studying themes such as regret, lack of fulfillment, and loneliness, Another Woman is pretty simple. Marion, now married to Ken (Ian Holm), is unhappy. On her second husband, Ken is closer to her in age than her ex and former philosophy professor, Sam (Philip Bosco). Marion began an affair with Ken when the latter was still married, but the one-year old marriage has hit a rough spot with the couple incapable of talking or having sex. Much of this is due to mutual issues, but Marion is certainly involved. She is having a mild affair with Larry Lewis (Gene Hackman), a man she truly loves. He is not an academic like Sam or Ken, but he has passion. Yet, she denies this and tries to make her loveless marriage work instead. For Marion, much of her problems stem from not being fulfilled in life and love. She is too smart and looks down upon those who are not as smart as her. Instead of finding a man who stimulates in some way other than her mind, she finds men who are smart but passionless. This has left her with a great amount of loneliness as she feels a distance to those around her.

Yet, one of the largest elements of strain is regret. At the end of the film, she wonders if memories are what we had or what we lost. For her, it is clearly the latter. Regretting an abortion she got out of fear of having a child while with Sam, regretting marrying Sam, regretting the affair with Ken, and regretting marrying Ken, Marion has a lot of baggage. She has deluded herself into believing she was happy for a long time, but she can longer keep the wool over her eyes. Of course, a lot of her problems equally stem from the mask she puts on for the world. As stated by Larry in his novel, once he kissed Marion, she pulled away and retreated behind her defenses. This is what has plagued her all these years. She pulls away from those who show her love in favor of those she can have academic conversations with. Initially tricking herself into thinking that all she needed was a smart man who stimulated her mind, she realizes she was wrong. She wanted a passionate man who deeply loved her. She wanted a child. Now, at her age, she is left with nothing but regret. Love may have past her by. Having a child is out of the question. Now, she must deal with the weight of her choices and their impact upon her.

Fortunately, however, there is a way out. At the end, she ensures that Ken's daughter, Laura (Martha Plimpton), will remain her friend after the divorce. She offers an olive branch to her largely estranged brother Paul (Harris Yulin). She is finally going to indulge in endeavors that do not make her think. Instead, she will follow her heart and follow the path of self-fulfillment. Though she may not have much time left at her age, she is determined to make the most of it and not become her father (John Houseman). Showing up in a dream to her, her father reveals that he too has regrets, wishes he treated his kids better, and had a different relationship with his wife. For Marion, this is one portion of her wake-up call to adjust her life. She is doomed to become him if not and that is not what she wants in the least.

Brilliantly depicted by Rowlands, Marion is a serious, cold, and stolid woman. She keeps to herself whenever possible and is very reserved and very judgmental. Yet, she is a broken woman. Rowlands never really cries here, but you can the damage in her eyes. She is fractured and Rowlands does incredibly well at capturing this in a tremendous performance. While Marion interacts with a variety of supporting characters, who all nail their roles as well, the film largely relies upon on Rowlands to carry the weight and she most certainly does. Woody Allen also delivers the goods in this serious drama film with terrifically authentic characters and good dialogue. It can be a bit on the nose at points, which is the film's biggest fault, but no matter in a character study this good and poignant.

A compelling character study, Another Woman is a terrific drama from Woody Allen. Starring Gena Rowlands in a truly marvelous performance and role, Another Woman examines the regrets and memories we amass over time that have led us to where we are now. By the end of the film, it becomes clear that the film is arguing in favor of the belief that time is never over until it is over. Rowlands' character may be older, but she still has a chance to make things right and change her life for the better. She has wasted too much time not investing in herself, she cannot afford to continue this mistake.

8/10 - At three hours, the extended cut of this film is a real behemoth. I am watching director Kenneth Lonergan's filmography is reverse order, having already seen Manchester by the Sea before watching Margaret. That said, this film further shows that there is a rule when watching a Longeran. If things can get worse, they absolutely will. In this film, a woman is killed by a bus and young Lisa Cohen (Anna Paquin) is a witness and a cause of the accident, as she purposely distracted the bus driver. The rest of the film depicts her trying to right this wrong and come to terms with the negative impact she had in this case. Largely a character study, Margaret is a film with a dire and pessimistic depiction of the world and of human beings. Yet, as is the case with his follow-up to this film, Margaret is oddly emotionally cathartic. Though it really goes the full 12 rounds with your heart and emotions, the film is an operatic and beautiful portrayal of life, death, teenagers, and human relationships.

The star of this film is Lisa Cohen. A teenage high school student, Lisa is a complicated character. Young, naive, angsty, antagonistic, strident, dramatic, and in a rush to grow up even if she knows nothing, Lisa is not somebody many people should like. However, why this film soars as a character study is Lonergan's refusal to judge her. At the end of the day, all of this anger, mistreatment of her mother, and distance, comes from her regret and pain over causing the death of a woman. She finds ways to deal with the pain and try to forget about it, though it is causing her great strain in her life and her relationships. She needs to release it all and let herself off the hook. By the end of the film, no matter how bratty and irresponsible and disrespectful she acts, you cannot help but feel great sympathy for her and what she has been through. It is tough growing up, let alone seeing such a gruesome death at a young age. Even more challenging, she is idealistic and believes the world must operate in a certain fashion. Though adults grow out of this, as said in the film, teenagers still have this clear view of the world. When things do not align in this fashion and people do not trip over themselves to agree with her, she is confused, affronted, and distraught. Though her traits make her sound horrible, Margaret truly portrays a tragic picture of Lisa and the shattering of her innocent and naive world. Ignorance is truly bliss and for her, she will no longer be ignorant.

An incredibly powerful film, it is clear that Lonergan loves the opera as much as Damien Chazelle loves jazz. With characters going to the opera multiple times in the film, the clearest definition of Lonergan's love of opera is the end. Cathartic, the opera leaves young Lisa in tears next to her mother, Joan (J. Smith-Cameron). The close shows Lisa embrace Joan in tears. While showing the power of the opera, it also shows tremendous growth for Lisa. Fighting with her mother throughout the film, she is now willing to accept her with open arms. She has grown up and is moving past her angsty and existential teenager phase.

At times, however, the film also parallels Lisa's interpretation of the opera. Perceiving it to be merely a medium in which the singers try to yell as loud as possible, Lisa's life is very much the same. Fighting with her mom, fighting with strangers, fighting with classmates, and more, she is antagonistic and looking for somebody to unleash upon at all turns. It is as if she is in her own opera and trying to outscream those around her, out of a belief that she knows best in spite of her lack of life experience. This behavior reveals a lot about her character throughout as her response to conflict is to become defensive and argumentative. She shuts out others and just assumes she is correct without altering her view. Yet, it makes sense because her mother is the same way. She overreacts and takes disagreement as a personal attack. She overreacts and pushes people away just because of a disagreement.

Powerful, depressing, and very long, Margaret's extended cut suffers from some filler. Moments come and go without adding much to the plot. That said, as the film is attempting to replicate real life, these moments are pretty easy to make sense of in the world of the film. Though everything may not advance the plot, the plot is merely an excuse to study Lisa and what makes her tick. This examination works as a large examination of teenagers and their place in the world. For Lonergan, the world is dark and depressing. Teenagers may wish they were older and try to put themselves in adult situations (losing their virginity and having sex), but the realities of adulthood (abortion, death, pain, loneliness, and injustice) will show them that being an adult is not easy. By the end, Lisa has realized this and shows her mother long overdue affection. Sadly, it comes as a result of her losing her innocence and optimism. Now that she has been exposed to the sad reality of the world in which she lives, she is doomed to become jaded, distraught, and disconnected with the world around her. For me, this is what the ending means. The tears are a result of the opera and of her crumbling world view. Her mother, having gone through the same, is heartbroken to see her daughter grow up before it is her time through forces out of her control. Heavy, yet beautiful and authentic, Margaret is a tremendous film from Lonergan that is poetic and painfully real.

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us