Barn Burning

Barn Burning is a film from 1980 that adapts William Faulkner's short story of the same name. It stars a young, and thus unrecognizable, Tommy Lee Jones in the star role of Abe Snopes, who was a prominent character in many works of Faulkner. The film is told from the eyes of Snopes' son, Sarty. Sarty watches, and so do we, as the destructive Snopes forces his family to move from town to town. For, Snopes is a cowardly man, and he burns the barns of anyone who crosses him. He's laconic, and well played by Jones. The film itself, is effective. It conveys a certain mood that is exclusively appropriate for the story. The visuals really aren't much, except for realism, and the sound is a little faulty. Truthfully, it's a film that has aged badly in its quality, but its content remains interesting and faithful. It's worth a look.
Barn Burning: ★★★

Eccentricities of a Blonde-Haired Girl

Eccentricities of a Blonde-Haired Girl is a wonder to behold. It was directed by 102 year old Manuel de Oliviera. He has been active since 1931, and his intentional gestures are especially apparent within Eccentricities. The film regards a young, Portuguese man who works for his uncle as an accountant. One day, peering outside his window, he sees a beautiful blonde. She is partly shrouded behind a veil, emerges with a chinese fan, and then returns into darkness. The way Oliviera handles this is with great care: he has no urgency, and this creates an anxiety. Like a first love, the accountant nervously attempts to approach the blonde. When he finally does, he finds that capturing her heart tastefully will be quite the chore, for he is poor. And here is the strength of the film: it's tender nature. For, as we see the young accountant act as a good man, and do good things, he can't seem to win. Oliviera creates a backdrop of cultural and religious metaphor, and yet the film seems to simple. We see a man who is afraid to lose something, and then is sorry that he ever lost it. Perhaps this is Oliviera musing at an old age on a 'girl who got away'. In the best scene of the movie, the couple are in a gambling room while the camera rests between that room and the adjacent one. In the adjacent room, which the camera briefly considers, a man gives a monologue on life. This monologue is so closely and eloquently intertwined with the events apropos to the accountant, that is heartbreaking to see him miss it, courting a girl in a gambling hall. Oliviera has crafted a great film, it seeps with melancholy, and yet it is endearing.
Eccentricities of a Blonde-Haired Girl: ★★★★

Get Shorty

Get Shorty is really not a great comedy, but it is a decent one. Perhaps its close parallel to the movie industry is what gained it such praise, and perhaps if I came from or had experienced actual strife within movie production, the film would have meant more. But Get Shorty without knowledge of such things stands alone as a pretty good comedy. It follows a stoic and one-look John Travolta as an ex-loan shark named Chili Palmer. Chili has enjoyed his time as a loan shark and has been able to accumulate some tough-guy attitudes, but his heart really lies with the movies. He knows every last bit to Touch of Evil and makes it clear that he loves movies perhaps too often. He plays around with pretty much everyone else in the film including Danny DeVito as a popular movie star, Gene Hackman as a director/producer of schlock who tries to get some money off of Chili, a loser from the loan shark days, a loser who got lucky, a sensitive bodyguard, and a floozy. So perhaps Get Shorty's greatest strength is also its weakness. For, the architectural plot also undermines some of the scenes. We always feel like we're speeding somewhere in Get Shorty, and then some of the payoffs pass by without us noticing. This is to the film's detriment, but also the idiocy of the characters against a complicated plot ends up making for a quite funny film. And that's really all we ask out of a comedy: for it to be funny. Get Shorty has some quite hilarious moments in it as well. It's a solid comedy.
Get Shorty: ★★★

Oscar Predictions

Best Original Score: The Social Network will win. This is mostly because it already won at the Golden Globes. Also, it's a damn good score written by Trent Reznor or the Nine Inch Nails and Atticus Ross.

Best Makeup: The Wolfman because when your plying gobs of makeup on a guy to turn him into a wolf, it's a long, skillful practice. Also, the classic monster movies were a great depiction of makeup in the movies. Nostalgia always has a big place within the Oscars.

Best Visual Effects: Inception will probably win (although Alice in Wonderland could be the upset). When you have a city folding back over itself, that's some damn good use of visual effects.

Best Costume Design: The King's Speech will win because it's going to win a lot of awards this year and no one really gives enough of a damn about this category to give it any real consideration.

Best Art Direction: Alice in Wonderland because of its overblown, Tim Burton flair.

Best Visual Short Film Animated: Day and Night because it was probably the most seen in the category for it came before Toy Story 3.


Best Documentary Short Subject: Poster Girl for inexplicable reasons.

Best Short Film Live Action: Na Wewe for inexplicable reasons.

Best Sound Editing: Inception because it was the loudest of the Oscar nominees and required crisp sound.

Music Original Song: "We Belong Together" from Toy Story 3 because of the obvious connotations.

Best Sound Mixing: The Social Network because of that opening scene where you can clearly hear Rooney Mara and Jesse Eisenberg talking in a bar.

Best Cinematography: The great Roger Deakins will finally win for True Grit. It's not really a great film, but it has trademark Deakins shots and as it is with the Oscars, it's 'his time to win.'

Best Editing: The Social Network because the editing was damn good as well as essential to the film's watchability.

Best Documentary Feature: Exit Through the Gift Shop because of its mass appeal and apolitical nature.

Best Animated Feature: One of the most obvious categories: It's going to be Toy Story 3.


Best Adapted Screenplay: A shoe-in for Aaron Sorkin for The Social Network.


Best Original Screenplay: The King's Speech. Although it's possible that Inception could worm its way in.

Best Foreign Film: The favorite is Incendies.


Best Supporting Actress: It's between Melissa Leo for The Fighter and Hailee Steinfeld for True Grit. It's going to be one of the closest wins of the night, but I predict Hailee Steinfeld.

Best Supporting Actor: The other close one between Christian Bale for The Fighter and Geoffrey Rush for The King's Speech. Despite Bale's many wins in the category, King's Speech needs some love so Rush will win.

Best Actress: Natalie Portman for Black Swan. No doubt.

Best Actor: The easiest to predict in a long time: Colin Firth for The King's Speech


Best Director: David Fincher for The Social Network.


Best Film: Either The Social Network or The King's Speech. The King's Speech has been the favorite, but as it was with Avatar vs. The Hurt Locker, the better film will win which is: The Social Network

The Sound of Fury/Try and Get Me!

The Sound of Fury is a fine, 1950 film noir. It has all of the marking of noir, and although it is devoid of striking camera movements, it is at times inventive with them while maintaining the main theme of film noir. This is, of course, the average man who is sucked into evil by unfortunate circumstances. And so we are left to consider Howard Tyler (Frank Lovejoy). He is unemployed but dearly loves his family and their approval. Seeing no alternative, Howard turns to crime for the allure of big bucks is to much to pass up. He gets mixed up with Jerry Slocum (Lloyd Bridges, father of Jeff Bridges). Slocum and Howard end up robbing a few minor stores, but pulling in a decent heap. The media makes a big deal out of all of this, instigated mostly by a journalist played by Richard Carlson. Eventually, things begin to go downhill for Howard, as the evil of his actions begin to arise. Now, the beginning of The Sound of Fury is quite good. The family portrait and the descent into shadiness is well done, and the opening title is a wonder. The film is especially good at conveying the normality of man, and how it can be twisted around to form spectral figures in our heads that we can demonize. This is not a great film, however, because the end finally feels preachy and self-righteous. Not to minimize some truly great scenes that come before this however, The Sound of Fury is a good film.
The Sound of Fury/Try and Get Me!: ★★★

The Art of the Steal

With The Art of the Steal one is presented with a finely crafted documentary whose beliefs and messages might not necessarily meet the feelings of some reviewers. It tells of the Barnes Collection: a collection of art containing masterpieces by van Gogh, Renoir, etc. The paintings were collected by a billionaire in the 40's named Barnes. Today, the paintings are together worth an estimated 25 billion dollars. During his lifetime, Barnes was bitter towards art critics and the establishment, so he kept his treasures within his house. In the documentary, we see how his collection was "stolen" by the city of Philadelphia. And here's the part I don't agree with. For, Barnes never wanted his art to be seen by rich establishment people. He felt as if they couldn't appreciate the art. So, through a foundation he would have it all preserved within his home and open to a selective group of people. After about thirty years of the foundation within a Barnes-loyal woman, the foundation is handed over to Lincoln University. Barnes had named Lincoln University in his will as a possible inheritor of the foundation. It would have been a real sock-it-to-ya in the 1950's to hand over billions of dollars worth in art to a bunch of negroes. But by the time the art reaches Lincoln, they're practically bankrupt. So, the head of Lincoln parades the art around the world in order to upkeep the collection. This is seen and demonized by the film, for Barnes would not have liked it. To make a long story short, after heaps of legal action against a group Barnes named as inheritors, the art ends up being moved to a Philadelphia run gallery. The Governor Ed Rendell sees this as great, for it will bring much needed tourism to the town and it will allow great art to actually be viewed. The other side (the film's side) sees this as a travesty against Barnes. But I question this travesty. None of the people on film knew Barnes or seem to care so much about a (debatably) violated Will. Rather, they seem upset that it will be used commercially by the city. I question what is wrong with that? What is wrong with making money off of the paintings if it helps the state? Barnes was an elitist who was ashamed of being rich. The people in the film are elitist. Statements arise like "I was afraid what the foundation might do to me" and "THOSE people don't KNOW art". This I cringe at, for it weakens the case for the documentary. If anything, the film exhibits how Barnes was not so smart, for he had an illusion within his mind that the paintings would forevermore be on the walls of his house. But Barnes is dead. The people he hated and didn't want to paintings to go to are dead. Let the art be enjoyed. This is not a bad film despite my problems with it's message. It is admirably passionate while telling a coherent story.
The Art of the Steal: ★★1/2

Unknown

It was in 2008 that Taken was released. It featured Liam Neeson (as this film does) in a role quite unlike anything you would expect from him. It's already apparent and established that Neeson is an actor of worth, but in Taken, Neeson had an evocative presence as an action star. This carries over into 2011's Unknown. Neeson has an intensity about him that makes him quite a good action star as well. The film begins as many classic thrillers do. Neeson's Martin Harris is in Berlin with his wife Liz (January Jones) for a conference. He mistakenly leaves his suitcase at the airport, and as soon as they reach the hotel where they are to stay, Martin jumps back into a cab in order to retrieve the suitcase. On his ride back to the airport, a freak accident causes himself and the driver (Diane Kruger) to plow through a rail and into the river. During the fall, Martin hits his head. He is saved by the driver and falls into a four day coma. When he awakens, his memory is faulty and fractured. He knows that he is Martin Harris, but when he returns to the hotel, Liz says she doesn't know him and presents her real husband. As in all thrillers, trouble is afoot, and Martin kicks ass while investigating his own life. Brilliant actors Bruno Ganz and Frank Langella also make appearances as important side characters. But Unknown actually manages to elevate itself to a quite good thriller. Neeson simply works as an action star, the cinematography is first rate, and it is quite enjoyable to experience the twist. Better than average.
Unknown: ★★★

Knife in the Water

Knife in the Water is the first film by Roman Polanski. Polanski is, today, one of the greatest living directors--his talents are focused and defined. However, it was apparent in Knife in the Water that Polanski was toying and fiddling with many ideas that would eventually become honed-in-upon trademarks. For, in his debut, Polanski almost fervently employs his themes of claustrophobia, guilt, and tension. Hell, the entire film (or 90% of it) takes place on a boat. The story isn't much too. A couple pick up a young, unnamed hitchhiker and end up persuading him to go sailing with them. As the film progresses, there becomes a dualist nature of young and old with the married man and the hitchhiker boy. Eventually, violence breaks out and sex enters the playing field. And I enjoyed the scenes where the tension broke through, but the earlier scenes which made up about half the film were just too boring. The characters seem fine with everything, and I think it was Polanski's need to have something strange occur. There was no real tension in the earlier scenes, and that is apparent because of the dialogue (which is infantile in its use and depth). I admire much of the camerawork and toyed around with themes, but the film ultimately fails to simmer and then abruptly comes to a boil.
Knife in the Water: ★★1/2

Spirited Away

Japanese Anime is for the most part overrated. The gaping mouths at shrieky talking, the too-sharp edges of characters' hair and the weirdness for the purpose of being weird usually off-puts this certain genre. And yet, greatness is within this genre, and it is apparent in Hayao Miyazaki. Miyazaki has been the writer/director for quite a few of these films, and it is with Spirited Away that he has attained greatness. For, crudity still exists as it must because it is japanese anime, but through beautifully sweeping scenes, creative characters, metaphorical storyline, and precisely drawn landscapes, Spirited Away becomes a wonder to behold. Even the things usually bad about the genre are transcended by Miyazaki. The film is mysterious as it begins with a family of three moving to their new home. They make a stop on the way though (for a strange force pulls them in), and they discover an abandoned carnival. The parents discover food, and as the daughter Sen looks around, her parents are transformed into pigs. It is discovered that this world is a bathhouse for weary spirits. Sen is imprisoned as an essential slave to a perhaps-evil witch, and as adventures ensue, the film only captivates more. It is the craft within the film that makes it so good. It never missteps, it is constantly entertaining, strangely beautiful, and mythologically sound. The film is about fear and the overcoming of that fear. The trip Miyazaki takes us on is a great one.
Spirited Away: ★★★★

Dogtooth

Dogtooth is as strange a film I have ever seen. In Greek and nominated for 2010's Best Foreign Language Film, it's truly a miracle that the Academy would ever have considered Dogtooth. Not for its quality does this astound me, but for its content. For, Dogtooth is at times sexually explicit, disturbing, and starkly frightening. There is no real story to Dogtooth, but rather a portion of time within an odd family. Odd...the word can't even begin to describe the family. The parents teach their three teenage children words. Except that the words they teach them are for the wrong things. Zombie means a small yellow flower, pussy means a large light. As the film progresses and the nature of the children is discovered, these words start to make sense. For, they are all words that the teens will never experience within the confines of the home. In their house, strange and practically sadistic games are played, a whore is brought in to quench the sexual thirst of the teenage boy, and when a cat enters the courtyard and the teenaged boy kills in with garden sheers, the event is explained to the teens as totally acceptable because cats are evil creatures. Now, at times the film becomes languid, and there is quite a bit of question to be raised whether the film is being weird just to be edgy, and where the film is supposed to be going. These issues bothered me, but the graphic quality of the film made it seem cavernous and lonely. Dogtooth is a good film, although it might be too much for some.
Dogtooth: ★★★1/2

The Crazies

It is a truth that becomes more and more evident the more "infection films" I go through. This truth: the first twenty minutes are interesting, and everything after that blows. For, with an infection movie it is the characters that are set up at the beginning, the town, and the filmmaker's personal flare that interests the audience within the first twenty minutes. But after you've run out of things to say about that, the "infection film" becomes like every single one before it. The most frustrating thing about this is that what is supposed to be thrilling becomes boring due to its predictability. Consider the original version of The Crazies (which was remade into absolute trash in 2010). Although the film has George A. Romero behind the camera, it cannot help but deviate into the realm of predictability. The only thing unique about the film is its sadistic nature. Every character is a killer or an asshole. The story revolves around two separate storylines. The first is concerned with a group of military commanders who are attempting to contain a town that has been infected with a biological weapon that turns everyone raving. The second is concerned with a group of possibly unaffected locals who are fleeing from the de-personified soldiers. I say de-personified because the director has attired them in creepy gas masks (so that we don't care when they die). The Crazies is no fun. It's stupid, hopeless, and predictable (so that you can see the further pain before you have to endure it). If only I would have seen the shittiness coming...
The Crazies: ★★

Monsters

Monsters is one of the little treasures of 2010. It was made very cheaply, and yet it brims with life. It was directed, written, shot, and special effect-ized by Gareth Edwards. With Monsters, he perhaps begins a fruitful career. For, Edwards understands what it means to thrill an audience. Rather than showing us his monsters up close in the first scene, he allows them to stay hidden in the background until the very end. Now then, Monsters tells an allegorical story. One of aliens (or monsters?) that have overtaken the northern half of Mexico. Opening titles explain that while searching for extra-terrestrial life, a probe that had obtained samples from another planet, crashed in Mexico. Monsters have over-ridden the country, and it is now off limits. However, the Mexican locals take people through to reach the border, while American fighter jets bomb the landscape from above. Make of these allegories as you will, but they don't even begin to describe or represent what occurs in the film. Andrew and Samantha are our main characters, and they have to trek through the infected zone in order to reach America. They are well played and well constructed (apropos to the writing) and as they move through the unknown, they discover what they otherwise would never have been able to.
Monsters: ★★★

Somewhere

Sofia Coppola has emerged as one of the greatest directors living today. Her Lost in Translation was one of the best films of the last decade, and now Somewhere marks another substantial success. Whenever I think of how Sofia Coppola's talent began to grow, I think of a young, forgotten girl sitting on the edge of her seat on the set of one of her father's films. She films in a cavernous fashion--she is the timid observer to life. This is where Somewhere must have come from: a film about the ennui of a movie star. The star is Johnny Marco (a brilliantly nuanced Stephen Dorff). He falls asleep during foreplay, he sits in his hotel room. His life is so monotonous and devoid of life that he might just slip and, say, break an arm one day. He is so dead inside, despite the outside, that the music that blasts in the film feels as if it's playing in another room. Dorff is practically spectral as Johnny. It's a great performance. Just as Johnny's life just might start to bore us, Elle Fanning enters as his daughter Cleo. This is another great performance (the two paired create a world for Coppola to delve into). She brims with life. He does not. As they travel around, play ping pong, Johnny begins to look like he might change. Will he? Would that even be realistic? Somewhere is a gorgeously filmed, wonderfully acted movie. It is nicely nuanced as well. One image, that Coppola makes a close up slowly and carefully, sums up the picture and its cavernous, distant quality. This is where Johnny is sitting in the makeup room, and his face has been plastered for a mold. We only hear him breathing for about an entire minute (eternity in a movie). What better a way to convey the distant quality of the character? It's appropriate considering the occupation, and although he is forced to sit and breathe through a mold, he seems no happier, no sadder. It has no effect.
Somewhere: ★★★★

After Dark, My Sweet

After Dark, My Sweet is a film directed by James Foley. The man has a forgettable name, and that's too bad, for his talent is under-appreciated: as seen in this film and in Glengarry Glen Ross. Perhaps the hidden genius within his films allow for him to go unnoticed. For, in After Dark, My Sweet there are scenes and cuts that you only fully realize later. The film is languorous--steamy under Californian skies and ambivalent. Many of the things that actually happen in the film happen because the characters were bored. They are so empty and lazy, that they allow for insanity to seep into their lives. Consider the main character: Collie (Jason Patric). He is strange and too amicable among those who should not be given a second look. He seems to do things out of a shrug. "What else was I gonna do?". One day at a bar, Collie meets Fay (Rachel Ward) after a scuffle with the barman. She drunkenly takes him home and offers him work, but after Collie meets the odd Uncle Bud, he flees. He eventually returns after fleeing from a doctor who suspects he is insane. Now that he's accepted this odd menagerie of people, he allows the insanity of Uncle Bud to pervade his life. The trio decide to kidnap a young boy, and all goes to hell. This is a noir film, and that was probably inevitable. There is so much anti-life in After Dark, My Sweet that it becomes sort of fascinating. The movie is no easy watch, for it is constantly challenging and languorous. And then at the end, we get to see everything that we have already seen in a new light. After Dark, My Sweet is so odd and contemplative, that it becomes sort of great.

The Sunset Limited

We open upon the subways. The lighting is dim, the color is vivid and crisp. Then, screaming by, runs the Sunset Limited (a train). Now we're in a dingy apartment and the expressionistic face of a balding, placid Samuel L. Jackson is before us. Fetishistic cuts to ornaments of furniture across the room inhabit the opening of The Sunset Limited. It is the second great film directed by Tommy Lee Jones. Jones and Jackson act in the film as 'Black' and 'White'. It is based on the play by Cormac McCarthy, and he has not only adapted the film for the silver screen, but has also worked with the actors: conveying his vision. The film was made in Santa Fe, but you wouldn't know it from the lurid indoors. Here, with The Sunset Limited we have a sort of modern My Dinner with Andre. That film was trenchantly concerned with the human condition and how that can be conveyed through conversation. So is this film. But the The Sunset Limited has a triumvirate of greats working on it. It reminded me of The Big Sleep in the way that it was fortunate enough to have multiple greats working on it. McCarthy is one of the best living writers, and that's a small party. The film is fetishistic in its camerawork, unsettling at times, truthful enough to be disconcerting, and provocative. McCarthy has written dialogue so beautiful and melancholy, and it is so well conveyed by actors Jones and Jackson that an excellent film has been constructed. To describe any bit of the film's dialogue would be silly, for I could in no way, shape, or form describe what was put so perfectly. It's a masterpiece, and the first great film of 2011.
The Sunset Limited: ★★★★

Enter the Void

I only saw the first forty minutes of the two and a half hour long Enter the Void. Usually, it would not be appropriate to write a review for a film of which I only saw 25% of. This is the exception however, for Enter the Void is so aimless and spectral a film, that you could come into it where I left off, see forty minutes and have the same experience that I had. It's an idiotic, pretentious film. Using blasting lights and camera tricks galore, talented filmmaker Gaspar Noe has made a true anti-masterpiece. Let me describe what story there was. We meet a drugged out loser in his hotel (or possibly apartment) in Tokyo. His girlfriend (Paz de la Huerta) leaves, he gets high, we get a light show. He leaves, goes to make a drug deal while baked, and is shot and killed. He leaves his body and floats around to see his girlfriend and a menagerie of other characters. So fucking dumb. I'm sorry, but the only way I could possibly see myself liking this movie is if I were baked. For, I don't see any difference between Oscar (the dead drugee floating around) dead or alive. Either way, he's baked. I wish I was, I would have been more entertained. But that's the problem with the film: we don't care about Oscar and no matter what his spirit views he can't change it because he's dead. By the way, for all the camera tricks, the camera is so incessantly shaky and hover-like that it ruins every image. Dumb. Stupid. Pretentious. Unredeemable.
Enter the Void: ✰1/2

28 Days Later

The talent of Danny Boyle is something that has been seen only in recent years. He made Trainspotting early in his career (and that was damn good), but only recently has he been esteemed (with films like Slumdog Millionaire and 127 Hours). Nowadays, audiences expect Boyle to churn out good movie after good movie. This was not always the case for him though, for he made the inept The Beach and 28 Days Later (a sort of cult hit). So, does 28 Days Later rank with Boyle's best work? Or does it exhibit the artist about to fledge? The latter, I think, is true. I was not amazed with the film as many have been. The story is pretty obvious and requires little explanation: An unknown virus has taken over London. The infected are zombie-like and vampiric. Meaning that if they bite you, you become one of them. Also, they only come out at night. A man who has woken up 28 days after the outbreak from a coma in an evacuated hospital in evacuated London meets up with a group of people hiding out. They hear word of army-controled land nearby, and make a run for it. But once they arrive at the base, things are not as they seem. Now, Boyle does bring some good qualities to the film. It is much better made than most zombie films, and the opening scenes are very, very good. But, the problem Boyle faces is that he might just end up making another forgettable zombie flick. So, he adds some human drama to the picture, and some philosophical ideas. I'm not sure that that aspect really works though. It's certainly interesting, but perhaps a little to contrived and unconvincing. Frankly, it's a little too abrupt. Again, I don't see the greatness in the film. I do however see that it is entertaining.
28 Days Later: ★★★

X-Men

X-Men is like mixing greek mythology with James Bond. There's an endless amount of characters (some with awesome powers, some with lame powers) and the plot goes into ridiculous territory with an evil mastermind using some odd device to destroy a major city. The beginning is quite good and more comprehensible than the rest of the film. We meet Rogue (Anna Paquin) who has a strange power where whoever she touches becomes drastically injured. As she travels around the country, she meet Wolverine (Hugh Jackman). Not ten minutes after the meeting of these two does some shit blow up in their face. They are attacked, and then miraculously saved. They discover an entire league of superhero-esque mutants like themselves. The plot of the film after this point revolves around a fear. For, the United States government threatens the mutants and their way of life. The government sees the mutants as weapons. Because of this, there is a sort of divide between mutants: those who want to fight back against the government, and those who refuse to. This is all kind of silly in retrospect, but while within the film, it is convincing enough. The action sequences are appropriate, the pacing is decent. All in all, it's just a little confusing. For, there are so many characters and different plot lines that we don't know where we're going from here. It's not bad, but it finally just has the feel of an average Bond movie.

X-Men: ★★★

The Girl Who Played With Fire

The Girl who Played with Fire is much more fitting a title than "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" was for that film. It's a stupid title (changed for American audiences) and it's merely explanatory and offers no real insight into the film. However, the title that author Sven Nykvist had originally chosen for part two was the title that has stuck. It's appropriate, and (unlike the first film) sets up a devious plot that centers around fire and the past. Now, the first film was excellent: moody and dark, disgusting and riveting. But this one is less artistically minded, and it's more up to the actors to secure the film's worthiness. However, it is the story in Part 2 that makes it so compelling--for we finally get to discover and rationalize the character: Lisbeth Salander. She's a great movie character, and probably was the first step to securing the books and film's worth. Played by Noomi Rapace, she makes the film. Paired with strong source material that places Lisbeth in the middle of a triple murder, The Girl who Played with Fire is a very good film. It's faulted for being too bright though. It's palette is noticeably and practically contradictory to the first film. That was a mistake, and lessens the impact of horrific scenes. Part 2 is also a much simpler plot, and it's probably all the better for it, for the audience is allowed to delve into the psyche of Lisbeth. It's not only an interesting experience, but a unique one.
The Girl Who Played With Fire: ★★★1/2

Jackie Brown

Jackie Brown is a film by Quentin Tarantino--a man infatuated with certain genres of film like Blaxploitation. Tarantino has a practically encyclopedic knowledge of film, and his knowledge is not all exclusive to just that, for his skill as a director allows him to implicate certain aspects of blaxploitation within Jackie Brown. For the film, he uses Pam Grier (a star of the 70's blaxploitation films), who brings a great and real quality to the movie. She traffics coke and other illegal substances from Mexico as a flight attendant. Her boss is played by the unique Samuel L. Jackson. Jackson's character and his friend (Robert De Niro) laze about like the characters in the Coen Brother's Big Lebowski. They watch tv of girls with guns, and every once in a while get a nice thrill (like from the floozy played by Bridget Fonda). One day, Jackie (Grier) is picked up by the feds, and is prompted to give up her employers. However, she is so smart, that she outwits everyone, except, perhaps, a bail bondsman played by Robert Forster. Jackie Brown is based on a novel by the great Elmore Leonard. Thus, its storyline is defined, and the payoffs are quite worthwhile. The translation to screen works quite well too. It builds tension, it presents colorful Tarantinian characters with biting dialogue. If the film has a fault, it is that it is long. Other than that, it is well acted, has a nice flare, and it is well directed.
Jackie Brown: ✰✰✰1/2

City Island

City Island is quite the offbeat, odd dramedy. At times it's condescending, at times it is touching, and most often it is amusing. It tells of a family who live on City Island: a part of the bronx that has stayed mostly to itself. The family we learn of is the Rizzo's. The father Vince is a corrections officer (jail guard), played nicely by Andy Garcia. Despite his occupation, Vince has always yearned to be an actor, and tells his wife Joyce (Julianna Margulies) that he's out playing poker when he's actually taking acting classes. As this is going on, their son has a fetish for obese pornography, their daughter has been kicked out of college (unbeknownst to the parents) and is working as a stripper. Vince's wife Joyce is also quite paranoid and verges on insane. So, all is not well with Vince, until one day while doing rounds he recognizes one of the names on the roster. He discovers that one of the new inmates is his son from another woman. Upon realizing this, he offers the inmate (named Tony and played by Steven Straight) a job working for him upon his release. With Tony in the picture, the secrets of the family unravel. Sometimes in strange ways involving Martin Scorsese films and Emily Mortimer, the family realizes what they've been doing for so long: lying. Now, this all could have been a shrill and obnoxious film. However, it is directed well by Raymond de Felitta, and the film turns into a practically languid, yet amusing film. It is not great by any stretch, and many of the things that happen within are not only unrealistic, but sort of stupid. However, the film is often funny and touching. The performances elevate the material to make City Island worthwhile.
City Island: ✰✰✰

Fahrenheit 9/11

Fahrenheit 9/11 quite ideally fits the definition of an essential movie. For, it is a movie that regards a certain time in American history that is of great importance. Fahrenheit also succeeds in the regard of a documentary. For, whatever your views, the way that it places out things and events make them sort of undebatable. There really isn't much arguing to be had against many of the things director Michael Moore offers up in his documentary. If anything, there might be some quibbles to make about his technique, and how it is almost steaming with emotion. However, these emotional moments make sense in the context of the film, and I had no problems with it. Of all of Moore's films, Fahrenheit is his most smooth, his most solid. Not only is it a great documentary in its multiple exposures, but it is a great record of a time. I do not wish to discuss the politics of the film, for that job resides within the film. Rather, it should be discussed how well the film was made by Moore (for that is overshadowed by the message). For, Fahrenheit 9/11 has been made in a very clever way. It tells a story. A story most of us already know, but in the film it dismantles the story and analyzes it. There's humor, there's silliness, there's seriousness, and there's atrocity. The film could not be constantly a downer, and so humor exists. The film could not constantly be serious or preachy, so there are numerous interviews and clips that add to the experience. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a great film, and essential due to its subject matter.

The Fountain

The Fountain is an extremely ambitious film, penned and directed by Darren Aronofsky. It stars Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz in what (at first glance) appears to be three interconnected stories that are separated by hundreds of years. However, The Fountain is really just one story, and the other two are manifestations of thought within the book of Weisz's character. Tommy (Jackman) is a neuroscientist. He's married to a dying Izzi (Weisz). She's writing a book while dying entitled: The Fountain  about a spanish conquistador. We see some of these scenes with Jackman also playing the conquistador. The conquistador is on the search for the fountain of youth. In some ways, so is Tommy. Tommy is unable to accept death, and although he is distant with Izzi, he is fully involved in his work: which he believes will cure death. There's a lot of similarities between the stories, and then there's the third, which makes little sense. It is just a bald and dramatic Jackman who has seemed to have unlocked immortality. The Fountain is an endlessly complicated film. It reminded me of 2001 in the way it is open to interpretation. Despite the emotion that Jackman and Aronofsky have brought to the film, it is hard to describe its flaws and anything but missteps. For that is what it does. It uses light at the wrong times, it goes from trenchantly sad to a spectacle in an instant, it is too brisk and fails to take its time. Mostly, it disappoints, for greatness is perhaps within it. It's finally a good film because of how interesting it is, but it could have been much more.
The Fountain: ✰✰✰

The Illusionist

The Illusionist is a good film that becomes great if you know why it came to be. It was penned by Jacques Tati: the prolific, renowned French director of fifty years ago. His films were great, and this screenplay was especially personal. For, Tati was in a position where he felt his craft (filmmaking) was failing him. He felt worn out and useless, and so he wrote the screenplay for The Illusionist. Tati died in the early 80's, and now in 2010, this film comes out. It is directed by Sylvain Chomet, and drawn gorgeously. It's an animated film, and for the most part: silent. This suits the film well, and gives it a magical quality. That quality is perfect to accompany the story, which follows an aging magician. The world is changing and he is becoming irrelevant. No one cares for magicians anymore, and he has a hard time finding work. One day at a gig, he befriends a young girl. Here we see the magician attempting to implant wonder within her. It's beautiful, and the way the film is delightfully whimsical and then trenchantly sad is the mark of a strong director. I think that three things make this film worthwhile. 1) The artistry. For animation is rarely so beautifully drawn. 2) The whimsy contrasted with the sadness. 3) The magician as a metaphor for Jacques Tati. Both feel as if their arts are irrelevant. Perhaps such a film in the tradition of Tati, thirty years after his death, proves him wrong.

The Illusionist: ✰✰✰1/2

Restrepo

Outpost (O.P.) Restrepo is a shitty little base in the middle of the Korengal Valley, Afghanistan. The post is held up by about eight men. They take fire four to five times a day, every day. They dig trenches, they try to amuse themselves, and they talk to the elders of the nearby town. When the soldiers receive fire, they don't know where it's coming from, so they blindly shoot everywhere in the general vicinity. They have no real plans of what to do, they just know that they have to try to shoot the twenty or so members of the Taliban nearby. This is what we see happen in a masterfully simple documentary shot courageously by Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger. O.P. Restrepo is named after a fallen friend of the soldiers. They remark near the beginning that naming the shitty base after such a great friend might not have been such a good idea. As the film progresses, it becomes more fascinating. We see the silliness in what they're doing. They have no real plans, they're in terrible danger every minute of every day, and the townspeople care more about cows than they do about the war. The soldiers are in terrible shape. They bomb portions where a Taliban member is, and it ends up killing children. In interviews with the soldiers in Italy after leaving Restrepo, we see their horrendous faces so wounded by what they've encountered. They say of documentaries that they show us the reaction of a community to some force. The reaction of these soldiers is fascinating, and well captured. The end of the film is as devastating as everything we've seen before it, and puts everything we've seen under a new light. Restrepo is a noble film.

Restrepo: ✰✰✰1/2

Sanctum

Sanctum is a film that's being put forth as if it were directed by James Cameron. It is not, and because of this Cameron will probably suffer. For, he's putting forth a forgettable and trashy film under his name and in the 3D that he religiously advocated for. This might just put the nail in the coffin of 3D, or at least start us down the road that will lead to its death. For, Sanctum is a film where a group of people get stuck in the last unexplored cave on Earth. Pretty much the entire film takes place in the cave...where it's dark. Thus, and already dark film is made into an ultra-dark film by the ridiculous 3D glasses. The 3D is actually so bad and so badly used in Sanctum that about half way through, they gave up on it, and I noticed little difference when I took the glasses off near the end of the film. Actually, it was a lot brighter and easier to see what was going on with the glasses off. That's the key thing wrong with Sanctum. It's hard to follow. The 3D makes it hard to see what's going on and the atrocious editing of the film makes it impossible to tell. Add idiotic dialogue that's employed by macho cave climbers and you get an incomprehensible film. There are admittedly some satisfying scenes near the end, but Sanctum also suffers from the disaster-movie-syndrome. The disaster-movie-syndrome means that one person (or maybe two if we're lucky!) will survive. One person will be an asshole, there will be father-son problems, and the ethnic character will die first. Pretty much all of this is true of Sanctum! It's sort of sadistic the way it unfolds, and by the end, we don't really care who survives. It's like a shock picture! Except that I wasn't shocked and that it was hard to tell what was going on, so I was shocked ten minutes later when I realized what had happened earlier. Sanctum is schlock.
Sanctum: ✰✰

Biutiful

Biutiful is a film directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu. He's a well established directors whose made non-linear films like: 21 Grams, Amores Perros, and the acclaimed Babel. All of his films deal with sin, guilt, and (for lack of a better term) shit happening. Biutiful is no exception to the obsession with these themes, and it's a difficult and contemplative film. I do not like it or have much affection for it, but it is a good film. Actually, the film is so effective that it is impossible for me to have affection for it. It is such a devastating and heavy film that it is at times unbearable. It follows a low level criminal named Uxbal (Javier Bardem) whose wife is nuts, kids are needy, and work is falling apart. To make things worse, he's dying of cancer. We see a man who wants to do good despite the bad things he's done. He's a good father, a good man, but he's bogged down by the past and the looming future. In one scene where he tries to help a group of chinese workers, he fucks up because he wants to save some money, and the worst happens. We see Uxbal go from bad to worse, and as all these terrible things build up, he reaches a breaking point. However, this breaking point won't even matter, for soon, he will be dead. Biutiful is at times a gorgeous and heartbreaking film, accentuated by the great performance of Javier Bardem, who evokes sadness and desolation better than most actors using his face alone. The film is admittedly too long, and at times it drags, but in the end, it appears as if there is some hope in Biutiful. It shatters the world and then suggests all might not be lost in a great scene at the very beginning, and at the very end. Biutiful is by no means a great film for Iñárritu to make, and I fear he lets his personal involvement with the movie lessen some of its translation to an audience from shots exclusive to him. That being said, it's a good film.
Biutiful: ✰✰✰

Never Let Me Go

Never Let Me Go is at once a gorgeously filmed, evocative film. It stars three of the best young actors alive. These include Andrew Garfield who was the cheated friend in this year's The Social Network and the gritty Red Riding Trilogy: 1974. Joining Garfield as star is the classically beautiful Carey Mulligan of An Education and the always underrated Keira Knightley. This trio act as a group of friends who came out of a British boarding school named Helshire. The first twenty minutes or so of the film uses child actors, who are all so wonderful, to map out the early, secluded lives of the three. We see the budding relationship between Mulligan's character: Kathy and Garfield's: Tommy. We see Kathy's kindness towards Tommy and then we see the jealousy of Knightley's Ruth. This is all done masterfully, until the world of happiness and seclusion is shattererd. For, one day in class, it is revealed to the children that they are merely to offer organs for their genetic counterparts. They live in a world where this is how it is, they cannot change what's coming. As they get on in years and confront this fate, the film blossoms. We see people closeto death who have decided what they want their lives to have been. The end is so heartbreaking, so moving, and such a gorgeous assessment of life. These characters are ones that you can't help but adore. They wimper throughout life, and yet their lives are of trenchant meaning. As a science fiction film, it transcends the usual things such a film tends to employ. It rather deals with the effect from this action. It's a great film.
Never Let Me Go: ✰✰✰✰

Catfish

Catfish is a difficult film to describe. There are two parts to it: the build-up and the payoff. The build-up considers a New York photographer named Nev. He's started an online relationship with a family in Michigan. One day he received a drawing of one of his photos in the mail from an eight-year-old. Her name is Abby, and Nev's amusement and pleasure he derives from the drawings intrigues him. He begins to talk with the mother: Angela on Facebook, and he is even more pleased to hear that the drawings have been sold. Now Nev is in this network of people on Facebook. He begins a relationship that might turn romantic with the daughter: Megan. He talks to her on the phone, texts her, chats with her. Everything is going fine. His two best friends are filming all of this, interested in their friend's online relationship. Some things start to not add up, as Nev discovers that the gallery house that Abby has been selling the drawings at, has been essentially condemned for four years. After about eight months of Nev's relationship with Megan, Angela, and Abby, they decide to see what's real, and they all drive down to Michigan. This build-up is fascinating and riveting. It's tense and mysterious. And then there's the payoff, where we discover what's really going on, which is surprising and strange, but actually kind of moving and sad. I don't want to spoil it, because that would nullify all of the suspense that the first part offers, but the real heart of the film lies within the revelation near the end. It's the way these people act and why that makes it so interesting. It's a documentary, and its validity has been doubted. I do not doubt it. Catfish is fascinating.
Catfish: ✰✰✰1/2

Picnic at Hanging Rock

Picnic at Hanging Rock is the first real film by Peter Weir, a director who has made many successful films such as: The Truman Show, Master and Commander, and this year's: The Way Back. Picnic at Hanging Rock is not only a very Australian kind of film, but one that seeps with creativity. For, it knows what kind of movie it is and exactly what it wants to convey. It is at times sexual and scary, and at others, outstandingly frustrating. It tells of a mystery, where, in 1900 Australia, a group of girls from a private school go out on Valentine's Day to Hanging Rock (the geological phenomenon nearby the school). At some point during the outing three of the students disappear without a trace, along with their teacher. A week later, a love interest of one of the missing girls returns to Hanging Rock to search. He finds nothing and decides to stay the night, telling his counterpart that he'll be alright. When the friend returns the next day, he discovers the boy bloody and exhausted due to exposure. He finds in his hand lace, and upon searching the crevices of the rock, discovers one of the missing girls. She remembers nothing. As the director takes us through this mystery, suggesting possible rape and murder of the missing with witnesses claiming they saw the teacher in her underwear, and with ominous and creepy music and hidden sexual devices throughout, Picnic at Hanging Rock becomes a mystery film where the mystery will not and should not be solved. We get so much effect from the disappearances, not only on ourselves and our desire to know the truth, but with the characters in the film: who practically go mad with worry and wonder. The film has undertones of impenetrable mystery, and this acts as an allegory for Australia: a place that had been taken from the native people and attempted to be lived in by Europeans. I do not think that Picnic at Hanging Rock is a great film. It can be too slow and it's ideas too impenetrable. But it does exactly what it wants to do, and well. It's cinematography is beautiful, the acting perfect, and most importantly: it brings an audience in with its creepiness.
Picnic at Hanging Rock: ✰✰✰

Crimes and Misdemeanors

Crimes and Misdemeanors is a good a film as Woody Allen has ever made. He's a director who tends to use his films to work out his own problems, and sometimes it doesn't come off well either because it wasn't a pressing problem, or because he really needed to get a grip (as in Whatever Works). With Crimes and Misdemeanors we really have two separate films, that, in the end, converge beautifully. The first story centers around an older man named Judah (Martin Landau). He's a successful ophthalmologist, but his love life is complicated. He's married to Miriam (Claire Boom) a woman he goes through the motions with. He's having an affair with Dolores (Anjelica Huston). The affair has been going on for two years and Dolores is beginning to get hasty and emotional. She wants Judah to leave his wife, but it's clear that he doesn't intend to. So, she plans to give up their secret to Miriam. Judah gets frightened, and has Dolores killed. He experiences terrible guilt, and feels his past loom up behind him. The second story centers around the Woody Allen character: Cliff. He's a documentary filmmaker who is making a film (just for the money) about a man he hates: Lester (a successful and arrogant man played by Alan Alda). But Cliff is afraid, he's married to a woman he knows will leave him soon, and he spends his days going to 40's films with his niece. Most of the comedy in the film resides in this portion of the film, but tragedy emerges as Cliff's fears emerge: he's terribly frightened that the woman he loves (played by Mia Farrow) will choose Lester over himself. Now, Crimes and Misdemeanors would be a good film if it had just been left to the witty comments and amusing neuroticism. Actually, if it had just been that, it would've ended up being just another entry into Woody Allen's body of work. However, the film has a Sound and the Fury tone to it, where all of the tragedy and evil that befalls the characters just makes them more interesting to consider. To regard. It is the most mature of all of Allen's works, and probably the least repetitive. It's probably his greatest film.

The Girl on the Train

The Girl on the Train is a film by André Téchiné, an esteemed French writer/director whose career goes back into the early 70's. Here, he makes a film without any urgency, without any tension. It follows the girl on the train: Jeanne (Émilie Dequenne), who lives her life without any urgency or thought. She's looking for a job, but she doesn't really know anything or have any worthwhile skills. She looks to her mother, Louise (Catherine Deneuve) for help, and Louise sends her to a prolific lawyer who she was close to years ago. The lawyer, Bleistein, is quite successful, jewish, and doesn't see much in Jeanne. Jeanne ends up with a professional wrestler and they house sit for an electronics dealer. It turns out that the guy was into drugs and her boyfriend is stabbed. In anger and confusion, Jeanne fakes a hate crime against herself, and claims that North Africans attacked her for being jewish (although she isn't). This becomes big news and suddenly Jeanne is a little more interesting to everyone (including the jewish lawyer, her mother, and even the French President). So many big things happen here: a stabbing, a lie, idiocy, and yet it is all handled without much life. Like it's main character, the film is in a daze and never really tells us why it's important. Jeanne is just a fuck-up, so why would the film want to parallel to that level of idiocy? Perhaps it makes it authentic, and it allows for questions to well up rather than be posed. This is an interesting and well-acted film, but I fear it was not handled well enough to deserve much praise. I don't regret seeing it and there's a lot to admire in The Girl on the Train, but it needed some urgency, or a driving force throughout.
The Girl on the Train: ★★★1/2