Harry Potter 1-7

No summaries here. Having set out on re-reading the entire series, I discovered three things I had not been aware of previously. The first: The Harry Potter books are vigorously literary. Meaning that they contain language quite above the head of a 4th grader, and contains levels of description not unlike the epicness of Tolkein's Ring, but with the flow of a detective novel. The second: Each book does get progressively better, as Rowling becomes more and more comfortable with her characters and each one approaches a realness that can only be attained by their repetition to become people. The third: The construction of the books within an exciting context is frankly masterful. And as I knew before, but solidifies with a retread over old material: Rowling's novels contain no profundity, but truth beyond that of most writers. Rowling is able to construct characters so real that they become aspects of life rather than letters placed one after another. The truth that Rowling evokes from pages is not only more important than most other books: which have political or personal value, but the books evoke such a range of emotional and practical material, that there is much to be extracted from it. The series is frankly a masterpiece of fiction that, in its appeal towards children, has found its own limitations based on subject matter. It is nevertheless this silly subject matter being elevated besides itself that allows for the books to be so cherished.

Rocket Science

Rocket Science is a film that is purely a gesture, it does not seem to want to entertain, for it is self-indulgent of its director. The film concerns Hal Hefner, a 15-year-old high schooler with a very odd, dysfunctional family (obligatory in indie films) and a terrible stutter. This has made Hal a loner. He seeks help from a speech therapist, but the guy is an idiot. One day as Hal looks longingly up at the school's legendary debater, he sees himself as a man who can talk as fast and with as much conviction. This creates the tone for the film, which is so unrealistic and idealistic that it's obnoxious. Songs that don't have anything to do with the story enter into inappropriate scenes as well. This shows the director's need to show us what he wants to, even if it doesn't fit. As Hal (Reece Thompson) is recruited by a girl debater named Ginny (Anna Kendrick), another indie cliché is set up, where the kid who couldn't gets the girl and the esteem. However, the film throws a curveball on this, and although the film is essentially a bad sports movie in disguise as an inspirational indie film, the curve helps. The main problem the film encounters, despite how much we care for its characters, is how obviously constructed it is. Entire lines of dialogue and actions feel excrutiatingly labored over. You can just imagine the filmmakers sitting around discussing how the clichéd film their making would usually go, so they ad-lib some words or pieces of furniture or "edgy" things. "Hey guys, instead of him throwing a chair lets have him throw a cello!" Rocket Science contains decent sequences and amiable characters, but the way they are undermined by a pretentious and clichéd plot makes it not only a mediocre film, but constantly frustrating. The film lastly feels as if it were made to please its director, who obviously has a personal stake within the stuttering portions. Doing this makes it unappealing for anyone else.
Rocket Science: ★★

Natalie Portman

Natalie Portman is an essentially underused and underrated actress until quite recently. It was only with 2010's Black Swan that Portman was beginning to be "taken seriously" by the public and the critics (by consensus). Revelatory statements like "I never knew she was that good" abounded, and Portman slowly seeped into movie stardom, starring in The Other Woman and No Strings Attached mere months after Black Swan's limited release. I argue that Portman was always a great actress, but found unattractive and diminutive roles. Or perhaps Portman found roles that were easy for people or shrug off. This often happens with actors, especially with actresses. But let's take a look at Portman's resumé, life work, and aspirations. Portman began acting, or at least was introduced to film public with 1994's The Professional, were she played a young girl beside a killer. This role brought acclaim for the child actress, and she was thus expected to become a great actress. Admittedly, the role was decent and it proved Portman's worth by playing alongside an adult and holding her own. After this, Portman was barraged with good roles in good films, including the masterpiece Heat, Everyone Says I Love You, and Mars Attacks. More mentionable within this period was a slight film called Beautiful Girls, which was more preachy than a real movie. Portman greatly elevated the so-so film as a perky and witty girl who lives next door to the main character. The warmth that Portman brought to the role was pitch-perfect, and she was well directed. At this point, Portman had already worked with esteemed directors Michael Mann and Woody Allen, but she then took absence from the film world, which was quite unexpected. From '96 to '99 Portman wasn't in a single film. But in '99 she made a sort of breakthrough that also limited her range and like-abilty. It was not her acting that did this, but the subject matter, which threatened to make Portman recognizable in a single role.

The film was The Phantom Menace, the first of the Star Wars prequel where Portman would play the crucial role of Queen Padmé Amidala, the mother of Luke Skywalker. Here is where Portman began to look bad in the eyes of essentially everyone, for although her acting was good, especially beside a not-so-good Hayden Christiansen. But it was a role that practically asked for people to not take her seriously, which is silly because it was not only a smart choice, but prudent one at the time. But the Star Wars prequels were not received well, and it threatened the actresses further career. Following this was a sort of dip in roles, which included the sequels to Phantom Menace (thus continuing this reign of ridiculousness toward her) and a couple of poorly received comedies. What came after this however, were films and performances that make her receptions seem frankly stupid. For, in the next few years, Portman had her bad choices: Mr. Magorium, The Other Boleyn Girl, Free Zone, Goya's Ghosts, but had a number of films that were great. In Garden State Portman's life and oddities were so well conveyed that the film became a sweet parable rather than another annoying indie film. In Closer, Portman revealed a "serious" side that should have wowed critics but was forgettable. Her role was so bitter-sweet that it was reminiscent of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.  V For Vendetta showed her daring to shave her head, an act that few other actresses would partake in. The Darjeeling Limited was merely solid, but just another entry into a great repertoire. Finally, Brothers, perhaps her best film at its release, exhibited a sentimentality and sublimely nuanced side. And then came Black Swan, for which she won an Oscar, which showed a culmination of the strengths exhibited in past films, and a vulnerability that was perhaps unprecedented. It is not only how well Portman is utilized and directed that makes her such a worthwhile subject of a film, but the way in which her face fees like a veil about to be thrown aside. When Portman allows for emotion to sweep across her face, a model-like face is broken down. It is her vulnerability and sentimentality that makes Portman such a great actress. It is a face that we expect, one that we see coming as the pretty face of a film, like a well furnished room, or colorful costuming, that is suddenly broken or revealed to us, that makes Portman exhibition like.

How fitting that her best film, Black Swan, about ballet, deals with what is behind the facade (specifically excellence). Just how we see legs that rise and fall with seemingly languid and simple nature, and then hear the intense breathing, and cracks in feet and toes that break this facade, that an actress like Portman would be able to portray its conduit. Portman's smile could easily be turned into a frown if her lip fell minutely, the compactness of her body makes her easy to use with action, with dance, with violence against women. Most of all her voice, which is at times embarrassed, and then breaks into sureness is sublime. Portman doesn't talk in a single, imitating tone, but with conviction (even when soft). Surely, Natalie Portman is one of the best actresses around, her intelligence allows her to pick great roles (she graduated from Harvard) and her talent and experience with great directors widens her versatility within genres.

Umberto D

Recently, I have tried to stray from reviewing films from memory. The benefit to this process was that the films had settled in my mind, but the reviews were not as visceral or fresh as they would be otherwise. However, with Umberto D, which parried its way across my mind in the early morning wind brush to school, I remembered the film and its images more freshly than my realization of its greatness had been after seeing the film originally. The film is essentially an exercise within genre. The genre is neo-realism, which consistently utilized non-actors in order to create a realistic feel. Perhaps it is this feel that has returned, as we plight through events are not of any real importance but to the party concerned. Umberto D considers a man whose name the title is, and his descent into inevitability: which includes old age, companionship that is obligatory to such a condition, and poverty within amiability (which often seems inappropriate and causes discomfort). As Umberto loves his dog Flike, he moves through the life of poverty methodically, as we all do within our own lives: collecting and sustaining, and implanting self-improtance to make it all worthwhile. What is so endearing about the observatory nature of Umberto D is the realization of empathy within what could have been anonymity. As something trite and obvious, perhaps even forgettable, becomes slowly abstract through the observatory camera, we sense that perhaps the actor who evokes Umberto experiences these things too. That we all experience such things.
Umberto D: ★★★★

The Truman Show

The Truman Show is an entertaining and compelling film from Peter Weir, who often makes films about events whose historical accuracies are dubious and thus exaggerated. However, here with a premise that is both original and possibly acts as a commentary succeeds despite such motives that could have gone awfully wrong. For, The Truman Show deals with a man named Truman who has lived within the biggest tv set ever constructed. His entire life is filmed 24 hours a day and for the last thirty years since his birth. All that Truman knows is this encased world that creates an idealistic life that is watched by millions. As Weir cuts between Truman's slow discovery of what he thinks of as a conspiracy, people watch him indifferent to his problems. They seem to care, and some genuinely do, but they are always in question. Consider how terribly bad this film could have gone, becoming an allegory for our own obsession with reality tv, and our numbness towards this. This is not the point of The Truman Show, for the way it is written (by Andrew Niccol, who penned the great sci-fi drama, Gattaca) is one that merely uses such plot points for entertainment instead of condemnation or condescension. At the heart of The Truman Show is the will of Truman to escape what is ideal. Consider, as trite as it is, the story of Adam of Eve, where they eat from the proclaimed tree of knowledge to see what lies outside of idealism. Truman does this as well. Within the Truman show there is an intricate puzzlebox of a plot, accentuated by being filmed almost sarcastically as kitschy scenes must enter to boost the ratings of the show. As Truman, Jim Carrey is pitch perfect, keeping the same amount of innocence and likeablity that is believable in the respective setting. The supporting cast is also good, featuring the underused, but radiant, Natascha McElhone as an activist fighting for Truman's freedom for ignorance, and Ed Harris as the literal eye in the sky. The Truman Show is a triumph both in respects to its popular entertainment value and its intricacies.
The Truman Show: ★★★★

Welcome to the Rileys

The main achievement of Jake Scott's Welcome to the Rileys is that it manages to be new and original, touching and realistic, with seemingly overused material. There are many films about the two subjects employed within Rileys, these two being man who thinks he can save the down-on-her-luck hooker and the marriage that is slowly re-kindling. In the film, James Gandolfini plays Doug, with an aggressively non-Gandolfini accent that sometimes works, who goes down to New Orleans for a convention. Upon meeting a hooker named Mallory, Gandolfini inexplicably (to himself and the audience) sells his business, tells his wife he 'can't come home yet', and begins paying Mallory a hundred bucks a day to stay in her dilapidated apartment. As Doug fixes the place up and Mallory begins to slowly trust him, Doug's wife, played by Melissa Leo, ventures out of her house for the first time in years, and drives down to New Orleans. The interactions between the characters take the old clichés and turn them upside down, showing us truth despite triteness, and also showing truths that are hard to hear and accept. Mallory is played so well by Kristen Stewart as vulnerable and animal-like that the character becomes easy to relate to. Despite all of the odd decisions characters make (like Doug's decision to pay a hooker a hundred dollars a day to stay at her ramshackle house) the way the others react as if it were actually strange endears the film past the point where some films do things for no reason or to get a laugh, cry, or clap. Welcome to the Rileys is an imperfect film that employs some interesting takes at an old story. The acting is first-rate, but some of the subtleties that could have been made were never utilized. There needed to be a languor to Welcome to the Rileys rather than the slight pace it employed. It's still a good film.
Welcome to the Rileys: ★★★

Nights and Weekends

Joe Swanberg is one of those directors who you would find mentioned next to the "mumblecore" film movement. Like most film movements, mumblecore is hard to define. However, Nights and Weekends would fall under some of the key points of mumblecore. For example, the film was made with a micro-budget, it was made by filmmakers in their twenties, and it is largely dialogue driven. Swanberg, who had already made a few mumblecore films, writes and directs alongside Greta Gerwig, who was in Swanberg's LOL and Hannah Takes the Stairs. The collaborative effort of the two young actors has created a push and pull within the film, which is appropriate considering the subject matter. For, the film decides to, in a way, observe the relationship between James (Swanberg) and Mattie (Gerwig). The two are attempting to maintain a long-distance relationship. One lives in Chicago, the other in New York. This creates a tension and immediacy to the relationship, as well as fear and fleeting thoughts. Now, this last line may have been too subjective, for Gerwig and Swanberg never seem to tell you what their movie is. Instead, they let what happens happen. This allows for an audience to decide who the characters are based upon the evidence Gerwig and Swanberg decide to divulge. A strength of the film is that it is visceral at the same time as not saying much. It's the kind of film where the details in a synopsis could be debated because the filmmakers are so devious. Nights and Weekends might not attain profundity, but it expertly creates a portrait of a certain type of people in a certain type of situation. For me, that makes it a triumph.
Nights and Weekends: ★★★1/2

Limitless

Limitless is ironically limited by its own subject matter. This movie is about a drug, one that hasn't been named with any sort of care or fashion (was that neglected?) and makes the taker access 100% of their brain, even though people can only access 20%. If you haven't noticed, I named two of the central problems in the previous sentence. The first is that it's bullshit that we use 20% of our brains. Perhaps while flinging a rubberband across a room I do, but that "theory" has been (and not recently) deemed bullshit. So, a movie about accessing unusual amounts of energy and power to do hot shit doesn't know a pretty simple fact that a high school kid knows. The second problem I alluded to was that the film neglects many aspects of itself. The first way it does this is in the drug itself, for with such grandiosity coming into play, doesn't take advantage of all that it could. Secondly, the film has delusions of style and grit and only utilizes them when it feels like it. At other times, the film is murky and uninteresting. It falls into stupid action movie plotlines, which doesn't help a film that wasn't confident in the first place. The story to support the drug (which is the only interesting aspect) ruins the film. For it uses Bradley Cooper in the lead as a low-key writer who discovers the drug by accident, and skyrockets to prominence. Along the way the character meets a mogul played by Robert De Niro. Even though De Niro is neglected as was the pattern with Limitless he has a line of dialogue that serves as a commentary upon the film and its essentially ruining flaw. In the scene, De Niro turns on the cocky Cooper and explains how no matter what the drug does, Cooper does not have the innate skills required. This is ignored by the film from that point onwards: which is a shame for it could have changed the destructive road the film started for itself. There is also a side story with Cooper's girlfriend played by the sublime Abbie Cornish. Cornish is excellent in the role, but her storyline doesn't make any sense, for, at first she is horrified by Cooper and claims he is not himself anymore (it is implied that he is the drug). But later, she takes him back when he exhibits no noticeable change. The finale is even stupider than what has followed, as the film cements its problems in a cocky monologue by Bradley Cooper. This is all really a shame for the film could have explored an, at first interesting, idea in an alternative and intriguing fashion. But Limitless falls flat.
Limitless: ★★

Around a Small Mountain

Around a Small Mountain is a dry and contemplative film by the 82 year-old Jacques Rivette, who was one of the prominent figures of the French New Wave movement over forty years ago. With Around a Small Mountain things happen quite slowly and rise out of small ideas or musings. It begins when Kate (Jane Birkin) has her car break down. A man comes up to help her and then leaves without speaking a word. Later, they meet in the city and Kate reveals to the man, whose name is Vittorio (Sergio Castellitto), that she is a circus performer. He is intrigued, and because he has nothing else to do, he goes to the circus. This is not the extravagant type of circus with elephants and tigers that inhabits the minds of most people whenever they think of circuses, but one that is referred to as "classic" and is truthfully failing. When Vittorio laughs loudly at an act by the clowns, they approach him afterwards to ask why. (They must have not seen such happiness towards their work in a long time). Vittorio becomes integral with the circus, and he almost becomes a sort of outside force that threatens to change them. This is perhaps for the better, and as the motives of Kate become clear: why she is in the circus, her past, etc. a sort of tenderness grows between the once silent Vittorio and Kate. This is all done beautifully, and the dialogue feels real. It reminded me of Steven Soderbergh's film Bubble in its insistence to show realism. At times this realism grows dull, and the dry nature of some of the characters evokes shrugs. But the strength of Vittorio's entrance into the world of the circus and the smart direction by Rivette creates a worthwhile film.
Around a Small Mountain: ★★★

The Fighter

The Fighter is an extremely difficult film. It is supposed to center upon Micky Ward, who was an Irish boxer in the 1980's who made a slow rise to prominence in his early thirties. In the film, Ward is played by Mark Wahlberg. That is the central problem of the film. For, Wahlberg has decided to play Ward, who was not very interesting to begin with, as a stoic and sheltered figure. Ward is constantly surrounded in the film by his family. The family clings to Ward as their little town's claim to fame. His mother Alice (played wonderfully by Melissa Leo) surrounds herself with a posse of snide sisters to Micky in order to maintain her confidence. Alice is aided by her other son, Dickie, who has been the town's claim to fame for knocking down Sugar Ray Leonard. Dickie is played by Christian Bale. It is a wonderful performance that brims with the charismatic life that fills every scene he inhabits and seeps into the other actors. It is not show-offy but genuine and immersive. Again we return to the problem the film encounters, for as Micky Ward attempts to "be his own man" and pushes back at Alice and Dickie, we see that he is not really very interesting. Also, it is not Micky who initiated this change, but his girlfriend Charlene (who is played with a bitter-sweet nuance by Amy Adams in her best role). Charlene comes head to head with Micky's family as she fights for his career. As Micky's career takes off, the family steps aside, but when the important days come, Micky wants his family there despite their problems. This is the problem. We see two charismatic sides pulling at a boring central figure. We see Wahlberg's face devoid of emotion or nuance, set upon a single idea or thought, and then we see the expressive face of Bale's character or the piercing looks of Adam's or Leo's. This does not however destroy this well-crafted and undeniably inspirational film. For instead one can view Micky as the boring tough-guy in all of these situations, and then the film becomes a commentary on hopes and dreams others place in an essential tool. This alternative solution to the film's problems is not very pleasing though and one has to wonder if that was really the intent of director David O. Russell. What can be said of the film is that it is fun. Micky isn't so fun, but Dickie encompasses so much of the film that his character's arc is more than satisfying. Perhaps the film should have been purely about Dickie, and we could have seen how an older, destructive Dickie watches his younger brother enter the limelight. Either way, The Fighter becomes merely a good film that is memorable because of its performances.
The Fighter: ★★★1/2

The Thing

The Thing is a hybrid remake of two different films. The first film it takes from both thematically and in title is The Thing From Another World, a great 50's sci-fi movie. The second is the Invasion of the Body Snatchers which has spawned for sequels and remakes than any other film in mind. Unlike Body Snatchers but directly pulling from The Thing From Another World, this 1982 John Carpenter film uses the setting of Antarctica. One day the scientists working at the remote outpost notice one of their dogs rushing towards them from out on the horizon. A helicopter is following it and the men inside are throwing bombs and shells down at the animal. When the men inside threaten the scientists, their boss kills the men, the dog escapes. It is revealed later, though, that the dog is merely the vessel for an alien creature that the men from the helicopter unearthed while drilling. The alien can imitate the body structure of any creature in gruesome fashion. This now means that any of the scientists could be an alien. Kurt Russell leads the cast, and it is only his screen presence and Carpenter's use of claustrophobic space that makes the film any fun. Mostly to the film's fault is the really, really bad writing. Sentences don't stream past three and what the men have to say is usually pretty dumb. So are there actions, for even though the alien can only "absorb" when it's alone with one other person, everyone at the camp decides to stray off and go on late-night strolls. The Thing is decently entertaining however, despite such faults.
The Thing: ★★★

Badlands

Badlands was the first film of Terrence Malick, who, since that debut in 1973 has only made three other films. His fourth is due out this year, and a fifth next year. He seems to want to make up for lost time at an old age. And this every-so-often filmmaking he had been exhibiting was a shame, for, all of his films are of a poetic quality. Badlands is no exception. It begins in a seemingly placid suburban South Dakota where Kit (Martin Sheen) is a charming garbage man who isn't very smart but likes to think he is. Kit begins to court a fifteen year-old named Holly (Sissy Spacek). Even though Kit is a good ten years older than Holly, she is infatuated for she proclaims herself to have no personality and not very pretty. She considers herself lucky to be the polestar of affection for Kit, who she mentions looks like James Dean. Kit and Holly have some wonderful times together, hiding out from the rest of society, who would, without a doubt, frown upon their relationship. This is the theme of Badlands as Kit and Holly stay in their solitary, delusional world away from reality. When they are threatened they attack. Holly's father doesn't like the relationship when he finds out. He doesn't last long, and almost inevitably and out of a fearful and frenzied action, Kit murders him. The duo flee and for some time spend a lyrical life out in the woods, as Holly narrates with beautifully simple and revealing monologue. As they flee from the law, Kit kills more people irrationally and cruelly. Holly never stops him, and thus becomes his accessory. The way that Malick keeps his camera and his directional decisions from condescending or looking down on his characters allows for the film to seep into the delusional world that Kit has created. What is most revealing about the film is the trashiness of its subjects. Their lyricism is submerged into delusion, and what comes out is visceral and absolute--like the shots that ring out of Kit's gun.
Badlands: ★★★★

Orphan

Orphan is a terribly effective, tense, and unpredictable horror movie. It has a twist at the end that comes so far out of nowhere, it will surprise and shock every and anyone who sees it. It is beautifully photographed, features scenes where the audience knows what the characters do not, which creates frustration, and it is wonderfully acted. Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard (two of the best actors around) play the grief stricken parents who have just lost Jessica, who should have been their third child, but was stillborn. In order to "transfer the love they would have shown Jessica to someone who really needs it", the couple adopt Esther, a Russian girl of around 11 or 12 who seems mature and intelligent for her age. However, as time goes by in the household, strange things start to happen around Esther. All of these things are believably rooted in the atmosphere of the movie though, and it creates a wonderful suspense for the audience. Kate (Farmiga's character) becomes dismayed by Esther, but Kate used to be a drinker and she could just be acting out because she's just lost a child, so she can be disregarded. This is the frustration of which I speak, for Esther's motives become quite clear to the audience while the characters within the film are still guessing. One of the great strengths of the film is how it can show us things we really enjoy like the unity of a family, or the tenderness that Farmiga brings to her damaged character, or even the sexiness of the Sarsgaard-Farmiga relationship, and then shatter each and every one of those ideals with the presence of Esther. The film, however, can be comical, sexy, scandalous, sickening, frightful, misleading, and shocking. Orphan is a masterful horror film.
Orphan: ★★★★

Spider-Man 2

With superhero movies, you either want it to commit to it's silliness and mythological premises, or attempt to be as far away from that as possible (like how Christopher Nolan created a crime drama where a guy just happens to have a proclivity towards bats). Spider-Man 2 commits to the former, and it helps. For, with a film like The Dark Knight, there are few things that are impossible or improbable as a man shooting webs from the tips of his fingers. But despite the silliness that exists within Spider-Man 2, like when the newspaper guy is talking about the nickname Doc Ock for the villain of the film, the movie has created a world where such things make sense. In Spider-Man 2, the story is enhanced from the not-so-great first film, and an inner turmoil within each of the characters, intermingled with dashingly tinted action sequences, creates a damn good superhero movie. Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) struggles with arriving to the apple of his eye, Mary Jane's (Kirsten Dunst), play because he was held up by robbers. Mary Jane herself struggles with whether to give Parker another chance, and the best friend of Peter, played by James Franco, struggles with his hatred for Spider-Man, but his love for Peter. All of these feelings are supported and urged onward by the character Dr. Octavius and his evil plans. Octavius (Alfred Molina) had been developing a revolutionary fusion device that would allow for plentiful amounts of cheap energy. In order to harness the energy, he created four mechanical arms that connected to his spinal cord so that he would be able to control them. However, once the experiment goes wrong, Octavius is maddened with power, the mechanical arms, and ambition. He becomes the villain and constantly meddles with Peter's love life, his career, and his happiness, which is incidental as Spider-Man must constantly try to stop Octavius. This is all done beautifully and harmoniously. Everything is in a decent balance within Spider-Man 2. It's probably the start of a line of great superhero movies, being followed by The Dark Knight and Iron Man.
Spider-Man 2: ★★★1/2

The Yellow Handkerchief

The Yellow Handkerchief is a placid movie. It never worries about being witty or interesting, and yet it becomes that naturally. It also never seeks out action or entertainment, but trusts in its own story, the power of its actors, and nuance to sell the film. The film concerns three drifters who go on a road trip to New Orleans for no reasons. Their actions are usually responsive rather than impulsive. The drifters are played by William Hurt in a brilliantly masked role, Kristen Stewart in a role that reaffirms her worth, and Eddie Redmayne as the strange young man who initiates the trip. Nothing much happens on the trip, but it has enough believable action to be entertaining while still maintaing its credibility. However, it is through these small actions of staying at a run-down hotel, watching poverty in the south fly by, and self-examination that the characters are fleshed out. We begin to learn things of the characters and make small assumptions about their character. Only a film with clearly defined characters who are expertly played can induce such examination. At times, Yellow Handkerchief seems too thought out for what it is. However, striking characters overcome such minor problems. The film is complex not in its story and its plot, but specifically in the way that it lets an audience consider its motives, and the motives of the characters. I compare the film to another film of similar placidity, In the Electric Mist. Like Mist, Handkerchief has no urgency to it, but our conclusions emerge from small facial expressions, winces, slight moves of the hand. This marks a confident film. Also like Electric Mist, The Yellow Handkerchief is a dreamy film, perhaps idealistic to the point of a much wanted fantasy world. The Yellow Handkerchief is one of the best films of 2010. And probably the best film Kristen Stewart has made so far in her young, but promising (excluding Twilight) career.
The Yellow Handkerchief: ★★★1/2

Vengeance

Vengeance is a film by Johnny To. To is one of the better Chinese directors, and he makes multiple films each year. Admittedly, some are below average to average, but films like Vengeance exhibit his intelligence as a director. He opens with a placid scene under rainfall, and then creates chaos. This is like most of the film, where To allows for languid sequences that are terse but informative and then allows for a great action sequence or burst of violence. The film stars the "French Elvis", Johnny Hallyday as Costello. Costello is losing his memory after having taken a bullet in his skull. However, he wants to do one last thing before he loses his memory: take revenge on whoever killed his family in the opening sequence mentioned above. Costello happens to meet three killers-for-hire, and along with the trio, they seek out the identity of the killers. As action sequences arise that are original and beautiful, the film becomes intriguing. Also, Costello is losing his memory, he will soon forget these horrors that have been committed. The question arises whether the cost of revenge is even worth it. Vengeance is a fine film. It's so comfortable with what it is, that it has a lot of fun with itself, and ends up being a damn good western. It fails as a thriller, but as a western it's an achievement.
Vengeance: ★★★

Rango

Rango is a delight of a film. It should win this 2011's Best Animated Feature Academy Award (especially because Pixar's entry will be a sequel to their only failure: Cars). It tells of Rango, a dramatic lizard who was thrown from a car on the highway. He's voiced with care by Johnny Depp (for at times it doesn't sound a bit like Depp's plodding voice). After he falls on the highway, Rango enters into a Western town and, using his acting talents, pretends to be a man of the law. The mayor awards him the position of sheriff after he kills a bird by mistake, and Rango becomes the hope and soul of the drought stricken town of 'Dirt'. The film is great. It uses its setting to its advantage by pulling on all sorts of Western movie themes. It is beautifully drawn, contains touching underlying themes, and is more funny than most of the proclaimed comedies out in theaters. Although the story sounds silly and exclusive to little kids, the opposite is true, and adults will take the most out of the film. Where most animated films use stupid scatological jokes and an excess of slapstick, Rango uses wit and parody. It's a triumph.
Rango: ★★★★

The Bridge

This movie sucks. It's a film that is trying to be edgy, and fails because it's overly simplistic, obvious, and unnecessarily creepy. It's a documentary that has captured a year of suicides at the Golden Gate Bridge. 24 people killed themselves at the bridge in 2004. In the film we see about a dozen of these tales and a dozen descents. The fact that so many people killed themselves at the bridge in a year, and some only a few days apart, is the only interesting part of the entire film. As it begins we watch someone fall and die, and then we hear from family members and observers of the person's last moments, and what led to their decision. A question arises here, why would anyone want to talk about such an event, and then exploit it for a supposedly edgy film? The people who jumped the bridge were obviously mentally ill, and that is quite clear from a barrage of information about the deceased. However, these observations are painfully obvious. The entire film feels like a scene where a reporter asks a Tsunami stricken victim: How do you feel? Well, obviously shitty, good thing we got that out of the way. The Bridge then continues to talk about victims without any doctor involved. Instead we just hear story after story from family members. Not only does this become boring, but cruel as it feels pushy and busybody-esque to be watching the film. The movie has delusions of ominousness, and there are countless shots of the bridge enveloped in creepy fog to strange music. The Bridge has nothing to say. It started out with a possibly interesting idea and then had to decide what to do with that idea. It's schlock.
The Bridge: ★1/2

Heartbeats

Heartbeats is the second film by the Canadian film prodigy, Xavier Dolan. Dolan has directed, art directed, written, starred in, and edited Heartbeats. The word prodigy fits Dolan appropriately, and although Heartbeats is far from perfect, it is its imperfection that makes it all the more interesting as an early entry into what will be a great career. The film tells of two best friends, Frankie (Dolan) and Marie (Monia Chokri). Both are overly critical, brutally witty, and nice to look at. Another twenty-something-year-old enters both of their lives. He's a rich, attractive man named Nicholas. At first each tells the other that he's not their type. This is not true, both characters become infatuated by Nicholas. Dolan makes this clear in stylized sequences he's placed to either pop or classical music where each character has sex with someone who isn't Nicholas, and they regret it. Nicholas is flirtatious and unclear where he stands sexually, so Marie and Frankie and taken along for the ride, and perhaps led on. Nicholas pits the friends against each other, and rather than this coming out in numerous violent outburst, Dolan allows for the tension to slowly rise. Heartbeats is one of the best and most exciting films I've seen in a while. Dolan is extremely talented, and places himself around other great talents like Chokri, whose face is gorgeously expressive and melancholy.
Heartbeats: ★★★1/2

The Gold Rush

The Gold Rush is a silent comedy from 1925. It is the perfect example of how great silent films from over eighty years ago can be. For, The Gold Rush is so effective a film on so many levels, that one cannot help but grin. It breaks two misconceptions: the first that silent films are boring, and the second that silent films are silent. For, the film is rife with colorful classical music that accentuates that pathos within Charlie Chaplin's film. It tells of Chaplin's usual character: The Tramp, as he treks to Alaska for the gold rush. He falls in love, but is often used as a cheap joke by the woman he loves. There's such a sadness to this character. He hopes, and his ideals are often broken down. However, through the ridiculous things that happen to the character, the audience grows sympathy for Chaplin. The film brims with wit, and effectively pulls at a variety of emotion. It's not the greatest Chaplin film, but it's a good introduction to him.
The Gold Rush: ★★★★

Idiocracy

Idiocracy is a low-budget film from Mike Judge, who did the great Office Space. It stars Luke Wilson as Joe, who is consistently average in every possible way. Joe and a hooker named Rita (Maya Rudolph) are chosen as the guinea pigs for a military project. They are to be frozen cryogenically and then woken up in the near future. However, everyone who's working on the project either forgets about it or goes to jail for unrelated activity. Joe and Rita are forgotten, and it's not until the mid 3000's that they wake up. They awake to a future of idiots. Man has become so lazy and in-urgent that everyone is really, really, stupid. Trash is piling up, gatorade is used to fuel crops, and Joe is mistaken for a fag because of how he talks. For, in the future "the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valleygirl, inner-city slang, and various grunts." Joe sets off to save the world as best an average guy can, and in the 3000's, he is the smartest man in the world. This is often amusing, and with such an original idea, the filmmakers have a lot to pull on for jokes. The film is constantly effective, and has narration that benefits the storyline a great deal. Sometimes it falls into clichéd low-budget movie territory and it is admittedly predictable. However, it's the general idea the film is working with, and how it never betrays that idea, that makes it a worthwhile comedy.
Idiocracy: ★★★

One Hour Photo

One Hour Photo is a brilliant and poetic film. It considers a lonely man without anyone to care for or anyone to care for him. This man is Sy, played with ease and nuance by Robin Williams. He works at a K-Mart-esque photo development stand. He has some steady customers, and thoroughly enjoys his job. He is so kind and low-key that you could pass him in the hallway and never consider him again. But in One Hour Photo we delve into that face of normality and see the psychotic. For, Sy has become obsessive over his job. His boss notices that he clings to it too much, and Sy himself keeps extra prints of one of his favorite customers. That customer is part of a family, and Sy often considers himself to be "Uncle Sy" as he has seen the family's child grow up through photos. As we see this psychotic nature come out, we become more fascinated. William performance is the key, but so is the eeriness of the cinematography, and the way that everyone in the film acts how you would expect them to. And the most interesting part of the developing psychotic-nature of Sy is that you could see him as a normal guy, or it could make you consider the inner-selves of all those who walk by and are forgotten. The poeticism and kindness the film has is admirable, and then it is followed to violence and outburst. A hell of a movie.
One Hour Photo: ★★★★

Animal Kingdom

Animal Kingdom is one of two good films to come out of Australia in 2010. The other, The Square, was made by Joel Edgerton (who is in Animal Kingdom). Like The Square, Animal Kingdom is often shockingly violent, while maintaining dark undertone. As the film opens, a mother is dead from a heroin OD, and her son watches an Aussie "Deal or No Deal" as the paramedics attempt to resuscitate her. Turns out, this mother was attempting to keep her son, J, away from the real bad side of the family. J is pretty clueless what to do following his mothers death, so he calls up this bad side, and is slowly sucked in. He meets the group of low-level criminals led by the honey-sweet, but evil, Smurf (Jacki Weaver). Her sons and husband are all pretty blatant in their criminal activity, but J has happened to come upon the family in their decline. After years of untouchability, the feds are closing in, and slowly the family is dismantled. Now, Animal Kingdom has a singular fault: the main character, J, is a bit boring. At times he is catatonic while surrounded by colorful characters like Guy Pearce, Weaver, and the previously mentioned Edgerton. However, this gives the sinkhole of a film a place to go. It allows for a numbness to be prodded into activity. The film is so dark and brooding, slow and occasionally shocking, that by the end, all that can happened has happened and we are left to consider a way of life.
Animal Kingdom: ★★★1/2