Street of Shame

Japanese director Kenji Mizoguchi's favorite subject was always prostitutes, and for his last film, that's what he burrowed into. STREET OF SHAME tells of a whorehouse and an ensemble of prostitutes working the street surrounding it. Each one of them has a specific and desperate necessity to be a hooker, but the Japanese government is considering banning the practice. The head of the whorehouse tells the girls that he and the 'missus' are the ones that really care about them, and that the government considers them less than people, even though they provide a social service. One of the women works to send money to her son, who is ashamed of her. Another seems to do it for fun, but later this develops into a dark greed. Another is raising money for sick husband, and her starving son. And yet another flees the whorehouse to look for a better life, but is told at the employment office that she might as well just become a whore. The necessity that Mizoguchi implants into his characters is essential, and he shows scenes broken up from each other so that the head of the whorehouse can applaud his workers in one scene, and cheat them while calling them merchandise in another. Mizoguchi's masterful use of mis-en-scene is at play here as well, fathers of whores enter and speak to their clothed daughters about the elephant in the room while pictures of naked women adorn the walls. Mizoguchi's composition is naturalistic, and yet evocative of the shame that the women face, and what they are forced to do. STREET OF SHAME is a fine film, although perhaps a little long or under-plotted.
Street of Shame: ★★★

Crash

Like many other films, CRASH is so upsetting that second viewings are hard to come by. Its counterparts of this syndrome would be Darren Aronofsky's REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, or Lars Von Trier's ANTICHRIST. These films each have something within them that is either so revealing of raw humanness that to re-see such harrowing things would file under masochism. But, then again, many American films exhibit how masochistic the audience is. Any horror film, where an audience becomes frightened, is an act of semi-masochism. Tension is too. But CRASH is a special case because it varies from the expected horrors within a film. CRASH is, at its heart, a fantasy, but one that parades itself as existing within the real world. It tells of a man (James Spader) who crashes his car head-on into an oncoming vehicle. The man in the car (who is presumed to have not been wearing a seatbelt) flies out and dies immediately, but the woman (Holly Hunter) survives, and as she escapes the car, her breast pops out which Spader's character looks at in surprised pleasure. Later, the two are at the hospital. Scars and scabs adorn their bodies, and Spader's character still gets turned on by his predicament, screwing his wife, and later the woman whose husband died in the crash. He later discovers more people who share his fetish: car crashes, which turn him on sexually. He gets involved with all of these people because of the love of cars, and that the story sometimes doesn't make sense only supports the idea of sexual compulsion. Many who hate this film, I fear, would take it's ideas of cars turn people on seriously. But this is merely a substitute for any number of odd turn on's and its creepiness only serves to support how creepy some turn on's are, and what they lead to. CRASH is a brilliant film, although it is occasionally upsetting. It's a porno, but instead of naughty nurses entering as foreplay, the car crashes are the foreplay.
Crash: ★★★★

My Neighbor Totoro

MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO is one of the most beloved family films. Its creatures alone are iconic and beloved. It comes from Hayao Miyazaki, a great animator / director who has made many a great film. SPIRITED AWAY stands as his best in my opinion, for it fully flaunts its mythological, spirit premise, and is visually layered. MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO however, is subtle in its visual spectacle. It briefly shows its creatures, and creates an anxiety around them. In the film, two kids, 4 and 10, move to a new house in the country with their dad to be closer to the hospital their mother is in. The first time they enter the house, strange black soot sprites scurry about, and please the two girls (voiced by Elle and Dakota Fanning) rather than scare them. They both want to see these creatures, as they stand more as cherished guardians than creepy ghosts. There isn't much actual tension in the film, and its amazing how slowly it takes for the actual plot to develop. Miyazaki instead emphasizes the tone in his film, building an array of family truisms, country bumpkinism parading as wiseness, and fantastical imagery. The wonder of MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO also undermines it, because the spectacles are so brief that we, the audience, want so much more of this. In his other films, like SPIRITED AWAY for example, the creativity just flows and continually surprises. I understand the point of the brevity in MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO, but it feels rather minor, if not surprisingly an entertainment for the restless.
My Neighbor Totoro: ★★★1/2

13 Assassins

There's so much misplaced hubbub made about "serious" films, and their antithesis, CGI spectacles, but the major point of cinema is lost on these: that an extremely fun film is better than the decently profound film. By this real standard, INDIANA JONES is a better film than, say, THE KING'S SPEECH because it is more fun than THE KING'S SPEECH is profound. Japanese director Takashi Miike understands the importance of outstanding fun or outstanding anything within the realm of cinema, and thus he makes outstanding films, whether that be an outstanding action movie, or an outstanding art house film. With 13 ASSASSINS, he accomplishes this. Although it's a remake of a 1963 film of the same plot, Miike's film is fresh. It consists of two parts. The first arranges the action by introducing the assassins who must inevitably show up and have a reason to be assassins. They are samurai at the end of their age, but are enlisted by a politician to assassinate a brutal royal member: the brother of the Shogun. This man is pure evil, going about the worst acts imaginable that surpass evil and enter sadism. Because of this we get completely on the samurai side, as they spout phrases about honor and duty. The samurai come up with a plan for their assassination. They are only 13 men, facing 200 guards. They set up a town for their ambush, but Miike smartly keeps what they're doing under wraps, revealing only a bit of their intents. When the ambush finally comes, after we have been compelled to care about the various characters, and even given some comic relief, Miike brings on the surprises, joyously showing comprehensive, believable sequences of absolute brilliance. Furthermore, after he has already proven his storytelling prowess, he continues to develop his characters even in the second act. Even his statements about samurai warriors is a smart and worthy one of the rest of his film. 13 ASSASSINS is a terrific action movie.
13 Assassins: ★★★★

The Tree of Life

Much has been said of this film, and most of things sound like they came from inattentive people. To say that this film is complicated is true, but to say that it is hard to understand is not only a different statement from "it's complicated", but also, untrue. THE TREE OF LIFE is quite straightforward, even though it's done in a fragmented way. But for a film that run 2hrs 12min, at the end of it, if I didn't know what I'd watched, I'd have been pretty disappointed in myself. Furthermore, the film is quite the spectacle, the photography in the film is outstanding, making THE TREE OF LIFE one of the best looking films ever. I fear that this strength, however, and the complex nature of the film, has prompted many to stamp the film with a clean bill of health, an A+ in filmmaking, without considering the many flaws of the film. Just because so many parts of THE TREE OF LIFE are brilliant, that does not make the film as a whole brilliant.
The film tells the supposedly semi-autobiographical story of its director, Terrence Malick. In his hometown of Waco, TX, a family grows up, and tension is astir. A father, Mr. O'Brien (Brad Pitt) treats his children sternly in the tradition of demanding nature, and a mother, Mrs. O'Brien (Jessica Chastain) treats her children with grace, attempting to protect them from penetrating forces. The film begins with the O'Brien's receiving news of their son's death. They lament, and so does their son (Sean Penn), who thinks back on his childhood in personal, fragmented memories that are dreamy and etherial.
The film then goes off on a tangent, which attempts to place the trivialities of the O'Brien family against the force of the universe. This cosmic tale begins with the big bang, trillions of galaxies, and finally earth, boiling magma, dinosaurs, and ends with the O'Brien's. Mrs. O'Brien has countless voiceovers in a whispered, pathetic voice that is at times laughable, but when contrasted with the cosmos, seems endearing. The Book of Job is referenced here (not as well as in the great Coen brother film, A SERIOUS MAN), but to the effect that the lives of the O'Brien's are trivial.
Malick then takes us back to the O'Brien children when they were children, showing them grow from infants to young boys, fighting their father, fighting each other, and becoming concerned with simple objects that are obviously personal and reminiscent to Malick. This is also a well photographed sequence, but not as strong as the others in its obvious personal nature: which feels foreign to many who haven't experienced things the way Malick has.
Finally, the living son as an adult is still lamenting, and the earth is destroyed when it is enveloped by the expanding sun. In a scene so obviously akin to 2001's last sequence, the son discovers his parents, and his brothers on a beach: the world ends, but some solace has been found.
Terrence Malick's film is an obvious work of genius when it comes to the photography, but in terms of sheer storytelling, it is a great failure. This is still not a bad film, for this is a film of ideas and of memory: not of plot or story. Images and sounds have the ability to entrance, and by the end of the film, it is not Malick's tributes that matter, but the bits of humanity that, cherrypicked, show a man working to encompass mankind. His filmmaking is flawed, occasionally bilious as he is frantic and restless, but his ideas are sound.
The Tree of Life: ★★★1/2

The Iron Giant

THE IRON GIANT could almost be called the first Pixar movie. It comes from Brad Bird, who later directed THE INCREDIBLES and RATATOUILLE. Unlike the Pixar films, the animation is pretty indiscernible, but in story content, it stands above. The film begins with a raging meteor from space plummeting towards earth and falling into the sea. A local fisherman is lost in the sea, and as he radios for help, he spots a couple of lights, which reveal themselves to be eyes. The film has already established a sense of familiarity, placing the Iron Giant of the title, who had to inevitably reveal himself, in a low-key setting. Rather than playing everything up with a monster in a large city, rampaging through skyscrapers and city streets, the giant is placed into a small town, with smallminded people. The fisherman who saw the giant is dismissed because he's a drunk, but the giant becomes a mysterious figure of schoolboy lore in his short time in town. One boy, Hogarth, who watches monster movies late at night while his single-mom is at work, decides to investigate. He goes off into the woods, and discovers the giant. Because this is a children's film, Hogarth befriends the giant, hiding him from G-Men who invade the small town in search of the giant they view as a weapon. But the Iron Giant is no monster, and from the kindly Hogarth he discovers that he has a choice over who he can be, despite his prerequisites. This is a simple moral, but one that is handled with ease. It's a fine film, never preachy or patronizing to any of its characters.
The Iron Giant: ★★★1/2

Monster

The 2003 film, MONSTER, raises the question of whether we should sympathize with murderers. This is a bold question to raise considering the emotion within that subject, and in the film a naturalism allows it to be asked cleanly. It tells of Aileen Wuornos, spectacled as "America's First Woman Serial Killer" back in the 1990's. Here, she is played by Charlize Theron, who, in real life is quite beautiful, but in MONSTER appears as a grotesque creature. She is certainly a victim of circumstance, having been abused as a child, and being so impoverished she was forced to become a hooker. She talks to her buddy at the bar about how people don't understand the situation society puts people into and he, a Vietnam veteran, agrees, talking about how at some point, you have no choice and no other way to go. This seems overly-sympathetic, but the film doesn't shy away from ugliness, showing Aileen as an atrocious, amoral person, well-substantiated by the astonishingly natural performance by Theron: whose performance is not only a metamorphoses, but irrespective of the camera and the audience by simply conveying the persona of  Wuornos. As Wuornos creeps around town, she meets a young 18 year old living with relatives in order to cure her lesbianism, but Wuornos takes the girl in, promising fun times, money, and a barrage of fantasies. This is such an authentic look at a killer, that it is endearing in its truthfulness. It never does what so many other films have done with similar murderous subjects: glamorizing them. Take, for example, BONNIE & CLYDE, which took two real-life, trashy, ugly, murderers, and glamorized them with sexy actors: Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty. MONSTER shows its subject for what she is: trash. And yet the film is not overcome but that, but works as an intriguing character study of not just Aileen Wuornos, but he people she managed to coerce.
Monster: ★★★1/2

Howl's Moving Castle

HOWL'S MOVING CASTLE is a great spectacle, like all of director Hayao Miyazaki's films. It begins with a wondrous, tortoise-esque, steampunk castle moving across alpine landscapes. This sets the future of the film up, as we return to a young girl named Sophie (Emily Mortimer) who makes hats and gets herself into trouble. On one occasion, Sophie encounters Howl, an enigmatic wizard of sorts who saves her from ghastly blob creatures. A wicked witch takes this to mean that Sophie has some importance, and thus turns her into an old woman as a punishment. Sophie, devastated, seeks out Howl, for he might have the power to change her back to her original form. HOWL'S MOVING CASTLE, and how it goes about its specific journey, is a depressingly disappointing film though: intermeshing nonsensical logic with supposedly grand subplots that do little but exist for the spectacle. Miyazaki's heroine's are usually young: practically children. Here, his heroine starts off as a child, but is turned into an old woman. Miyazaki, at an old age, is attempting to create a unity between young and old, but his heroine is at heart, still young, and her oldness is only a mask of wrinkles. If this is Miyazaki's attempt to say that the old still have the hearts of the young, then his statement is awkward. His heroine is undeserving of her oldness, its false. In translation to storytelling, the now-old heroine seems tired and has none of the liveliness of Miyazaki's other characters. His statement is awkward because it is only part-true. Like the contrivance of the young turned old, Miyazaki utilizes a falsehood for support. His other films show this unity better, especially SPIRITED AWAY, where the elderly witch is one of the most animated characters. But in HOWL'S MOVING CASTLE, with a premise that is awkward, the story becomes mired in a silliness. But it's only when so many aspects of a film work that it can become ultimately disappointing due to a major fault. There are wonderful aspects of the film, including the steampunk castle, a feisty fire demon, and an odd scarecrow, but we should wonders should be a given in any Miyazaki film, and for the director to fail on other fronts makes for an anticlimactic ending, and dissatisfaction.
Howl's Moving Castle: ★★

Hannah and Her Sisters

Various crises abound in Woody Allen's 1986 film, his highest grossing one ever (although MIDNIGHT AND PARIS might change that this year). The film has various plots to support the various crises, but everything comes back to one character (whichever one you define that role to). One story develops into another, and then turns around and comes back to the other. Hannah, from the title, is played by Mia Farrow. She's a good wife, with many children, an intelligent husband, Elliot (Michael Caine), an amiable ex (Woody Allen), and two sisters. Trouble is afoot however, when at Thanksgiving dinner, Elliot discovers that he's in love with Hannah's sister Lee (Barbara Hershey). 'It's a delicate situation', Elliot often muses, but he never handles the situation the way his mind tells him to. Meanwhile, Allen's character Mickey Sachs fears he has a brain tumor, remembers his marriage to Hannah, and even a disastrous date with her other sister, Holly (Dianne Wiest). His near-death encounter makes him think about god, and most of the humor comes from his story, and its intertwined logic with the others. Max von Sydow even shows up in the film to solidify Allen's desire to imitate Ingmar Bergman, and he plays a pretentious boyfriend to Lee. This may seem like a melodramatic setup, but it creates a wonderful catharses at the end. Allen evokes the images of place, and fleeting moments, and even fleeting people: how we interact with different people at different times and the nuances of those relationships. Like his great CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, the film is ultimately sad & hopeful. I think it's one of his best films: never ostentatious, but slowly revealing.
Hannah and Her Sisters: ★★★★

The Virgin Suicides

It's a shame that the reason why Sofia Coppola's debut film is not very good is that it's based on a book. The film tells of the Lisbon family in an 80's-era faux-American milieu. They are all described as quite beautiful by the narrator of the film, who ominously talks of the terrible events that befell them. The narrator, it seems, was one of a group of teenage boys who admired and idolized the girls, and then were shocked at their suicide(s). There's a lot of understated blame within the film, which is always just in the form of a hint than in the form of a definitive statement on why. Possibilities include the constricting parents, but in other scenes the film seems to laugh that off. This adds to the eclectic quality in Coppola's film, utilizing old hippie-music, dances, frivolous narration, and contradiction. The contradictions seem to exist to make the answer of why the girls killed themselves to be unsure and unsolvable: it works here. What also works is Coppola's style, but the fact that its undermined by an essentially sappy story is what is disappointing. The milieu the film establishes is one that is juvenile and uninteresting. The narration by one of the boys seems essential in order to accentuate the idea of the idolization of the Lisbon family, but that same narration calls attention to itself by seeming secretly sarcastic, or as if the statements and musings made in the narration only deserve to be in this film. In fact, its as if those musings exist only to support the film's narrative, and not the events surrounding the Lisbons. I admit that Coppola's direction here is quite fine, but it is so squelched by the narrative, which is overbearingly pretentious using words like: The adults had the ingenious idea to throw an asphyxiation ball. This seems like indie-oddity trash. Coppola's direction, and her actors (including Kirsten Dunst as the primary Lisbon girl) didn't deserve such schlocky writing.
The Virgin Suicides: ★★

They Live

A drifter referred to as "Nada" because he has no other name comes into town. He first applies for a job at a bank, telling the teller how the bank's back home all conked out, but this seems like a joke because next he settles into life as a bum: taking shoddy work at construction sites, eating his meals at homeless shelters and living in a shantytown across the street from a church. Perhaps just because he's bored, he looks across the street at the eerie church and notices a black, blind preacher mouthing verbatim the same words as a loon on the tv. He investigates, but is rushed out when a team of police aggressively attack the church, taking the preacher with them. Soon afterwards, Nada discovers a box of sunglasses that were stashed in the church, puts them on, and a strange world is revealed to him. Signs and magazines say simple things like CONFORM or WATCH TV in the place of their original texts, people mingled across town are revealed to be aliens. Nada essentially discovers a controlled world: an Orwellian society with planted individuals to break down society. The film was directed by John Carpenter. His direction is perfect for this frivolous but fun film, treating the events with serious tones. His fight scenes are well choreographed and allow for the audience to forget whatever political statements he's trying to make. His witticisms work in the same manner, and although they detract from the political points, it's okay because  those political points aren't really worthy of the fun direction. The same political undertones of George A. Romero's films work because they're so understated, and not overwhelmingly obvious as they are in THEY LIVE. Still, this is a fine science fiction film, with great direction from Carpenter and none of the depressing hopelessness of Romero, which often undermines his work.
They Live: ★★★1/2

The Human Centipede

The opposite of the last entry, IN THE CITY OF SYLVIA, THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE is the cinematic equivalent of smell-o-vision or a video of a sneezing panda on YouTube. It is purely a gimmick, unconcerned with plot, aesthetics, story, or moral. The plot is of no significance because it is a contrivance worthy of creation at a watercooler. Its sole purpose is to put structure around the gimmick in order for it to be sellable. What it actually does is elongate an unworthy gimmick in an unworthy film. This is not cinema, but a juvenile musing of "wouldn't this be cool" translated into a film. The idea of a human centipede, or people connected surgically by a mad doctor from end to end as a form of torture is not only perverse, but, when seen on the screen, pretty stupid looking and unrealistic. What is so funny about this awful film is not its idea or even its plot, but the idea that this was cool or gross, when it actually looks shoddy at best. THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE is unworthy to even be called a film, there should be a name for this kind of thing.
The Human Centipede: Zero Stars

In the City of Sylvia

IN THE CITY OF SYLVIA is a Spanish film by José Luis Guerín. It's slow going and extremely languid, telling vaguely of a man visiting a French city after not having been there for six years. He sits at a local coffeeshop with a terrible waitress, sketches, and searches faces for a woman named Sylvia. One of his sketches is of this mystery woman. It's entitled Elle (Her) and then retitled as Elles (Them), to suggest that his search is probably in vain, and perhaps even that Sylvia represents an intangible idea or presence, rather than a specific person. During this scan of coffeeshop women, he discovers a woman in red, perks up, and follows her around town. This is pretty much the extent of the plot, but Guerín's film is visually inventive, knowledgeable about cities, and more importantly, knowledgable about the average bored individual man and his milieu. During the coffeeshop scene where the man sketches and re-sketches the various women, Guerín's camera only unveils little bits of the scene: first revealing a man and a woman sitting next to each other looking anxious, and then returning to that man five minutes later revealing that the man is sitting at an opposite table from the woman earlier, and that he is with his wife at his own table. Guerín's inventiveness consists of various glances and suggestions about the sketcher's feelings. The women he sketches are all vastly different from one another, but all quite beautiful. In the essential chase scene that comes later, when the drawer follows the woman in red, we see an entire town slowly and in fragments as the woman circles around the square through shops, alleys, and street crossings. Even in the picture added in above, a simple scene of a woman waiting for the train is accentuated by the picture of a model who seems to be glancing in the direction of the woman waiting. The woman who waits is not as beautiful, and she seems tired and old as she waits. Later in this same scene, Guerín cuts to a breathtaking woman wearing a shawl and sunglasses. And even later, he cuts back to the same woman, who takes off her sunglasses and reveals ghastly burns. IN THE CITY OF SYLVIA is a gorgeous rendition of city, sound, and nervous glances. These glances lead to every event in the film: the chase, the sketches, the woman with burns, the woman waiting. It's suggestive, and yet illusory. It would be presumptive to say that I understood everything in Guerín's film, but it dared me to look, and to try to understand. That is cinema at its greatest, its most human.
In the City of Sylvia: ★★★★

Blue Valentine

BLUE VALENTINE tells the story of Dean and Cindy: two perpetually down on their luck Americans. Dean (who is played by Ryan Gosling) isn't even a high school graduate, but goes all out to charm the lovely Cindy (Michelle Williams). She quickly falls for him, traversing the road to being a doctor by day, and by night serenaded by Dean. This happy story is only half of BLUE VALENTINE, however, for director Derek Cianfrance interchanges these hopeful, romantic, and sometimes eerily self-concously indie scenes with scenes that tell of Dean in Cindy six years later. This tale is a darker one, rife with sexual desperation on the part of Dean, who loses the affections of wife Cindy as fast as he loses his hair. The couple aren't pleased with each other, and even their daughter, who represents all that is happy in the courting scenes, is an annoyance to them. This side of BLUE VALENTINE is raw and ugly. Every indie gesture from the happier side is here even sarcastic. For, director Cianfrance's intertwining of the two stories manipulates one to see the couple at their happiest, and then at their ugliest. The strength of his film is exhibited by his lead actors: Williams & Gosling. Their performances do what few films do: they bring out the ugly sides of likeable people; it brings to light that which we would not normally want to see (or hear). Despite these strengths in the film, there is a self-importance here that is accentuated by Cianfrance's self-concious structure. His camera movements, and constant close-ups make us uncomfortable. This uncomfortableness would be alright in spare, but its constant use makes everything seem raw. Rather, it demands that everything is, but when the film only touches on the rawness with its actors and their dialogue alone, it seems pretentious. BLUE VALENTINE is no grand statement, but it really should be given the grandness Cianfrance brings to it. This is ultimately disappointing and sigh worthy. His film should not be dismissed, and more importantly, the performances of Gosling and Williams don't deserve it. This is a good film, but whatever potential greatness it had, that was squandered by the effervescent quality of its director.
Blue Valentine: ★★★

Young Mr. Lincoln

YOUNG MR. LINCOLN has a pretty self-explanatory title, except that it's false. The film pretends to tell the "origin story" of Lincoln, except that the story it tells is fictionalized. John Ford directed the film, placing Henry Fonda in the role of the young Lincoln. We see him with a girl, he leaves, and upon his return, finds her to be dead. He seems heartbroken, and he laments at her grave, asking her what career path he should take. The music swells: a sappy score characteristic of such a propaganda film, which basically furthers Lincoln's standing as an honest, great American. Apart from this being a fake film, the events are slightly compelling. Lincoln decides to be a lawyer, and Fonda plays him as a broken soul, musing intelligently every once in a while like a good, laconic, cowboy figure pervasive in Ford's multitude of other films. Lincoln's convenient chance to prove himself comes at the expense of a death. Two boys seem to be the culprits, and the townspeople are quick to want to hang them. Lincoln, however, attempts to convince the townspeople of good, virtuous American values, and so starts a trial, more sappy music, and more sanctimonious speeches. Fonda is quite good in his role, pulling on Lincoln's earlier, traumatizing experience to play him as a figure who is smart with the conciseness and wit of his words. Ford, directing, also makes YOUNG MR. LINCOLN a lot better than the MGM memo sporting it as a good American film deserves to be. His directing powers at this point are quite great: his mis-en-scene coupled with foreboding scenes that are obviously a reference to Lincoln's later years. This is all unfortunately undone by the film's sappiness, for that just lacquers the film a sense of pre-disposition.

Young Mr. Lincoln: ★★1/2

Thrill of a Romance

THRILL OF A ROMANCE is a film that encompasses many crowd-pleasing elements. Made in 1945 and starring Esther Williams and Van Johnson, it was one of those big-budget, "everyman" movies that were churned out with big stars and decent production value. It tells of a newlywed wife, Cynthia (Williams), who is on her honeymoon alone. Her husband is back in Washington, continually postponing his arrival while his wife remains alone and anxious. This anxiety works for a while, and Cynthia parades about the resort to a point where her actions, and thus the film becomes gaudy. Because of who Esther Williams is, its easy for the film to gorgeously attire her surroundings, with her at the center: the polestar of beauty. She swims, which is helpful because of William's real life persona, and they even include that swimming plot point into the story. This is accomplished when, as Cynthia dives impeccably, she spots out a young navy-man named Tom. He's played by Van Johnson, who brings a sweetness to his role. He and Cynthia begin a relationship, but its an awkward one. Cynthia is too conflicted to her title of "newlywed" to completely succumb to the lovestruck Tom, but even the other residents of the resort begin to side with the inevitable result of a Cynthia + Tom relationship. The film beautifully implants a role played by opera singer Lauritz Melchor. He livens up the film quite often, although his frequent singing only adds to how schmaltzy the film is. This is the real conflict of THRILL OF A ROMANCE, for, like the other residents of the resort, we are quite aware of how the film will end, if only because it is that kind of film. Thus, the schmaltz becomes problematic, and the gaudiness of the still-appealing Williams. Melchor is an amiable presence, and so is his subplot, Williams & Johnson are also appealing, but this isn't really much of a film. It's more like an appealing romance, and considering most of the awful romantic-comedies of today, its certainly a better choice in that realm. Despite THRILL OF A ROMANCE's schmaltz, its charm works.
Thrill of a Romance: ★★★

Wendy and Lucy

Kelly Reichardt directed this 2008 film starring Michelle Williams. She has a stark style to her that likes to exhibit something obvious that's been laden in repurposing additions. For example, in her film, MEEK'S CUTOFF she shows a group of travelers who starve to death on the Oregon trail. We have all been so conditioned with visions of attacking indians, however, that the true and most dangerous aspect of these journeys were lost. It is the same with WENDY AND LUCY, which simply tells of a woman who is "just passing through" a small Oregon town with her dog, Lucy. The woman, Wendy, is played by Michelle Williams, who is the only big name in the film, and without much plot in the film, Williams is able to perfectly evoke the depressing woman. For, as we watch Wendy get out of her old clunker, sleep in the car, and pick up bottles to turn in, there's a timely figure of the broken American that Reichardt evokes. The town is shot in such a way that we see an emphasis on the streets, gates, stores, and we feel as if the town exists only outside of these houses where, of course, Wendy is doomed to loom. We learn little about her past, and prospected future, but that's okay because Wendy seems too hopeless to have any sort of "american dream" that populates so many depressing, but family oriented films in the 21st century especially. Reichardt also deftly shows Wendy to be not unlike many of us, as she is afraid of her fellow homeless. The only plot point Reichardt puts into the story is that Wendy loses her dog. The circumstances around this loss are finely realistic, and will remain unspoiled in this review. She starts obsessing over her only friend in the world, and we follow her as she searches. A kind old man who must have been cast on location as he looks so authentically poor, helps Wendy out, perhaps if only because he isn't too far off from Wendy's situation. WENDY AND LUCY is perhaps too simplistic, but it gets many details right, and remains unostentatious while making its point (which is uncharacteristic of many indie films about the poor or hopeless). It is not as good as Reichardt's MEEK'S CUTOFF, but a solid introduction to her style, which hopefully will flourish past MEEK'S CUTOFF and develop into more complicated fare.
Wendy and Lucy: ★★★

Castle in the Sky

Inventive and original as any Miyazaki film, one of his first features from the 80's, CASTLE IN THE SKY also contains many lesser known, or less frequently addressed trademarks of the master animator. The film begins with a sky battle between pirates and mysterious men in suits who always wear sunglasses and contain the same enigmatic nature as men in black. The battle is in the air, and the pirates embark from their buzzard-like ship into insect-like personal ships, attacking the massive one of the men in suits. There's a struggle, and it becomes clear that the pirates are after a young girl on the ship, and specifically, a blue necklace she's wearing. In the confusion, she falls, plummeting to the earth. We are sure she'll die, but her necklace gives off a wonderful light, and floats her safely to the earth below, where she meets the other protagonist, a young miner named Pazu. Pazu and the girl (whose name is Sheeta, and voiced by a young Anna Paquin) become close, but they're relationship flourishes quickly, even as they have to quickly go on the run from the pirates, and the devious men from earlier. Pazu and Sheeta discover that the necklace is magical (presumably from how it allowed Sheeta to float to the ground), and that it probably came from a magical, legendary city that floats in the sky named Laputa. From that point, the story becomes a search for the magical city. There's a lot of heartwarming, balanced fun with Sheeta and Pazu, and then, as is ubiquitous in Miyazaki's work, the original "bad guys", the pirates, become the good pals of Sheeta and Pazu. This transformation is unwieldy, however, for in later Miyazaki films the buried evils of the enemies become friends is constantly addressed and present. Also a trademark of Miyazaki's work, and handled in a shoddy way here, is the "good message" that has become so important to even Pixar (as was overbearing in their WALL-E). Here, there is an environmental parable that seems to even supersede the lives of many of the government officials who show up. Eventually, it becomes condescending and ultimately preachy. It does not completely overtake the film's decency, but it just solidifies that it is just that: a decent film, and not must else.
Castle in the Sky: ★★★

This Is Spinal Tap

Where the acclaim for the mockumentary (self-deemed "rockumentary") film THIS IS SPINAL TAP came from, I don't know. Perhaps the film is too topical to be very funny anymore. I'm sure that the hair, pants and other attire of the fake rock n' roll band Spinal Tap was quite appealing to people during the time of those thing's popularity. But frankly, that type of person doesn't exist anymore, and isn't part of the modern American pantheon of culture. The cowboy doesn't exist anymore, but it's still a present figure in our minds, the American rocker however, seems less present, and more nostalgic than anything else. THIS IS SPINAL TAP parades itself as a documentary by a foolish young director (played by Rob Reiner, who actually directed) who heard the band Spinal Tap once, and decided to make a movie about them. This is all supposed to be quite funny as we follow the obviously crappy rock band around on their tour. But they seem to have gotten lucky a long time ago, and that luck has run out, except that the band still sees themselves as defining or important. The film then proceeds to essentially make fun of these fake people. It looks down upon them as they go from a few thousand showing up at their shows to playing at puppet shows. It gets quite boring, as the film gets extremely repetitive and although seeing some of the actors in wigs and fake mustaches was appealing at first, that novelty grows old. Most of the jokes that do work only work because they could have worked in a different setting. The fake band Spinal Tap grows annoying and pathetic. For a music lover, it feels like a waste of time to care about a group of people who think they're the best and play terrible music. Added to that, these people don't even exist, so there isn't any underlaying truth to what's going on; as there usually is that element in real documentaries. If the film is supposed to be funny because it satirizes that period's rock and roll stars well, it doesn't do anything else very well. It isn't funny without knowledge or misplaced affection for that time, it's poorly shot, and its not even as funny as later, more universal mockumentaries. Watching this film was like being with someone getting drunk for the first time: acting how they think drunk people should, or must act. The same is true of these "rockers", spewing quasi-philisophical trash and then repurposing it as funny. Even if it is "authentic", then isn't that just annoying? We are already aware that, say, Paris Hilton is a ditz, so why would anyone want to make a movie about her and imitate her. It's like seeing a shoddy imitation of the real thing. Consider BEST IN SHOW, which is a universally entertaining and funny film to see rather than this overrated mockumentary.
This Is Spinal Tap: ★1/2

Collateral

Michael Mann's COLLATERAL is a thrilling, introspective, existentialist masterpiece. It tells of two men and the relationship between them in the style of that of Tony Scott. But this is Mann's film: stylistically riveting and occasionally stark. There's a quality to it that is very integral to Los Angeles, where it is set, but it contains universal themes, and small reminders of a larger world or larger truths. The film begins with Max (Jamie Foxx), a cabbie who's just trying to make end's meat, but has been doing so for 12 years. One day a woman (Jada Pinkett Smith) and it begins a sort of cosmic decided fate for the cabbie. He knows the streets extremely well, and is quite charming with the woman who reveals herself as a lawyer, and, before she leaves, reveals her number. Max is overjoyed, and sits in his cab dazed until a man taps on his car and essentially wakes him. The man who enters is Vincent (Tom Cruise), slick and gray-haired but fast talking and existentially compelling. Vincent gives Max $600 to "hang with him" for the rest of the night as he goes and visits friends. Max is reluctant at first, but then agrees. However, at the first stop, Max discovers Vincent's true identity to be a gun-for-hire. Mann's film here reveals itself to be a noir film. Max is at heart a good guy, good enough to get the number from a woman out of his league, good enough to make Vincent want him to drive him around. However, as Max's self-guilt is brought out by the existentialist musings of Vincent, he is driven to change himself to fight back and become a darker, more rash man. This suspenseful film is then adorned with wonderful camera movements and images, and the acting from Cruise and Foxx are first-rate (even to the point of being so authentic its hard to notice their acting). Mann pulls no punches, although he could have done so to be universally entertaining, rather, his film is entertaining because it is specific to a time and place, or to two people.
Collateral: ★★★★

The Best Films of 2010 (revised)

A long time passes, and opinions change. The films of 2010 have had a long time to slowly settle in my mind. Some films fell in opinion, like 127 HOURS, which I originally viewed as a inspirational triumph, and now I view as an exciting spectacle with many problems. I still really like the film, but it seems somewhat unworthy. Also some smaller films like WINTER'S BONE haunted me, and images I saw in other, older films were reminiscent of Jennifer Lawrence's determined face and bloodied cheek. Lastly, a film I wasn't sure of, but admired more than like, called THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN has grown in my mind. I am now sure of its greatness, and previously I was not sure. I have also seen many more films from 2010 than I had when I constructed the list. It is virtually impossible to see all  the films that came out in 2010, and honestly, some films are unworthy of being seen to be considered. Do I really need to see LITTLE FOCKERS, YOU AGAIN, GROWN UPS, and GULLIVER'S TRAVELS? Below around 30% on the movie aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes, and you're really wasting your time. Thus,

1. The Social Network. A film starring Jesse Eisenberg as the creator of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg was easily called a "modern film" that was "about our times" but at its heart it's a well constructed symphony of images and conversations. David Fincher's film was not about the creation of Facebook, but about how an obsession destroy's everything around it. Like his previous ZODIAC, gorgeously centered around a small group of people and their downward spiral.

2. Winter's Bone. Haunting and authentic, Debra Granik's film about white trash cooking up meth in the Ozarks took its strength from its performances. Some of these were by real-life people of the Ozarks, and others were chewed up by the likes of John Hawkes, and dominated by the down-to-earth Jennifer Lawrence. Textured and dark, but strangely inspirational.

3. Eccentricities of a Blonde-Haired Girl. Wonderfully understated and nuanced, 103 year old director Manuel De Oliviera's film was creepy and sad, but sweepingly realistic and new.

4. Inception. A fun spectacle that was smart and ambitious, Christopher Nolan's overdone dreamworld did things on its terms in a stylized, well-written venture.

5. Black Swan. A vivid, entertaining fable by Darren Aronofsky with a brilliant, crafty performance by the underrated Natalie Portman. It's moral is a little simplistic, but mired in various underlying themes of old vs. new and intentional clichés.

6. White Material. A wonderful parable on racism that's better than any inspirational tale of overcoming adversity in Africa, it's knowledgable and compelling with wonderful direction by Claire Denis.

7. Somewhere. A slow but riveting picture of thick, drowning quality by Sofia Coppola.

8. The Ghost Writer. A wonderful thriller by Roman Polanski.

9. I Am Love. A gorgeously adorned, well-acted film dealing with victorian problems in modern times.

10. All Good Things. A creepy film with wonderful performances by Kirsten Dunst and Ryan Gosling, creates the unsureness about an event like Fincher's ZODIAC.

12. Never Let Me Go. Science-fiction without spectacle puts pressure on three promising young actors.

13. Leaves of Grass. An elegiac portrait within an unlikely source. Edward Norton plays a dual role, and the film grows starkly dark and more and more interesting.

14. The Yellow Handkerchief / Welcome to the Riley's. Both feature great performances by the underrated Kristen Stewart who continues to define herself in her films with special flares.

15. The King's Speech. Still impressive but slightly repetitive and intentional. Despite that it's well adorned, acted, and paced.

16. The Secret in Their Eyes. A great crime thriller spanning thirty years.

17. The American. A slow-paced but intriguing film starring George Clooney as a hit-man which feels authentic.

The Triplets of Belleville

The film begins with crude animation reminiscent of Felix the Cat. A group of women are entering a theatre to listen to the triplets of Belleville. They are all fat, and one man is even stuck between the butt cheeks of one women. The triplets sing a little song, and finally an elephant sized woman enters the stage and pounds on the stage. Finally, as these images have become too strange to comprehend, the film zooms out and we see a pint size woman and her son watching the tv. We see the woman trying to come up with different ways to entertain her son. A dog named Bruno, who barks at the train passing by their window every fifteen minutes is the first attempt, and the second is a bike, which we can tell he cherishes. There is no talking in THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE, but rather, a series of sounds and images that speak for themselves. It is funny in a dark way, but never overly ridiculous, but sort of interesting as if some bored pot smoker decided to sketch out some mildly funny images. But this film also has a continuity and a craft to it. The boy eventually grows up and trains for the Tour du France, he is kidnapped and his mother searches endlessly with Bruno the dog for him. There is a sweetness to all of this, and a subdued and controlled comedy that is balanced and reminiscent of Jacques Tati and even in some ways, Buster Keaton. The images are brilliant, large and doom-like, with an underlaying of sweetness exhibited by the triplets or by the mother. THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE is surrealistic, but never succumbs to not caring because of its strangeness. A great film.
The Triplets of Belleville: ★★★★

Another Year

Mike Leigh's ANOTHER YEAR is a film driven by its actors. Leigh always works with his actors extensively before even beginning to film, and here it really shows. This film isn't really about anything, but is driven by mood. Leigh takes us through the seasons, starting with Spring and ending with Winter. In the spring, a happy man and wife named Tom and Gerri Hepple (played by Jim Broadbent and Ruth Sheen) deal with a sad and occasionally drunken friend named Mary (Lesley Manville). Gerri and Mary both work at a clinic. Mary's a lowly secretary, but goes out for drinks with Gerri (who's a councilor) often and barges into their house every once in a while. Mary, however, is not the typical movie-drunk, but actress Lesley Manville portrays her in a nuanced fashion. Broadbent and Sheen are also wonderful in their roles, and as the film progresses through the seasons, tones changing with each one, Mary's downward spiral becomes more and more apparent. It isn't obvious, but buried beneath a façade of cheeriness. The way that Leigh does this is quite admirable. The pace is slow, but it allows us to seep into the world these people inhabit. Bad things happen and good things happen, people die, but people are born. In ANOTHER YEAR, nothing is obvious, but the ideas that we started out with are broken down, and then reconstructed in a different way.
Another Year: ★★★1/2

The Incredibles

Another attempt by Pixar Animation Studios to make a film about every possible thing on kid's minds, THE INCREDIBLES is another attempt by the studio that ends in absolute success. With this film, the studio tackles superhero's, and does so in a very strange way. First we learn of the myriad of superhero's around in the world who fight crime in a 1950-era-esque way. However (paralleling to the demise of the 50's and that innocence) the superhero's are sued for damages and forced to go into hiding. We see Bob Parr (the former Mr. Incredible with the power of super-strength) depressed and badly adjusted to normal life at an insurance company. He's married to Elasta-girl (with the power of super-flexibility and stretch) who is now a stay-at-home mom watching over their teenaged daughter Violet (w/ the power of invisibility and the ability to create forcefields), their son Dash (w/ the power of super speed), and their infant son Jack Jack (with unknown capabilities). One day however, the normal life becomes too much for Bob and he gets an offer he can't refuse from a mysterious woman. He takes off and is thrust into a deadly faceoff with an old annoyance turned self-titled nemesis. This is all very exciting, and is accentuated by the film's clever dialogue, spoofs of James Bond (with the employment of a woman named "E" who comes up with all the gadgets), and commentary on the average american life and its methodical nature. THE INCREDIBLES is not as visually arresting as earlier (or later) Pixar films, but its is quite entertaining. If it has a fault other than 'it isn't as good as their other films' it would be that the film is a tad dark, and doesn't really balance that darkness.
The Incredibles: ★★★

Super 8

Over-referred to as a "Spielbergian" film or an homage piece, J.J. Abrams' (of the lively STAR TREK and "Lost") SUPER 8 is a fine stand-alone summer movie. Abrams may use many of the camera movements and plot devices of early Spielberg films, but his desire to entertain through spectacle and, in this case, a Spielbergesque medium shines through the most. SUPER 8 concerns itself with a group of 12 year oldish kids in the late 70's--or is it early 80's? Abrams himself doesn't seem to be sure--who, while filming a zombie movie for a film festival with a super 8 camera, witness a derailed train that contains strange white cubes, and a creature in one of the compartments. The children, led by Joel Courtney as the Deputy Sheriff's son, Kyle Chandler as the filmmaker, and the wonderful Elle Fanning as the go-along friend, are uniformly interesting, and lead the film towards its cosmic peripheral interests. For, in Abram's film, his special effects are slightly lost amid the muddled, and frankly underwhelming truths. Rather, how the children in the film reach those truths is what is interesting and well executed / constructed. Especially the Elle Fanning character, and her interactions with the somewhat dazed boys, is compelling. Abrams also proves himself to be quite good in many fields here. The film is often funny in modern ways, and often pretty exciting. SUPER 8 is, simply, a good film. That's actually what is bothersome, for perhaps if Abrams hadn't boxed his creativity in with the "homage" bullshit, then he could have made a wonderful, modernly Spielbergesque film. Still good though.
Super 8: ★★★

Ratatouille

RATATOUILLE has a simple statement to make about art. It does not attempt to transcend, but entertains (quite well actually). It's tale is centered around simplicity, and does this from the Pixar Animation Studios at Disney, which has made some of the best animated films that often cringe inducing company has ever churned out. The film tells of a humble rat with extraordinary smell capabilities named Remy (voiced by Patton Oswalt), who, within his horde (of rats), only uses this ability to check for rat poison on garbage. His real desire, however, is to become a cook after watching the famous Gusteau on a woman's tv in the suburbs of Paris. The horde is found one day by the woman living in the house Remy occasionally ventures into for spices, and they are forced down a drainpipe, separating the family, but leaving Remy free from his past obligations. He ends up preparing a soup in Gusteau's now only 3 star restaurant. Everyone thinks the goofy Linguini is behind the soup, and he becomes famous, with Remy controlling him. As the film progresses, director Brad Bird shows his talent as an animator and developer of likable characters. The films greatness as a simple statement on art comes out when a critic comes to review Gusteau's. I would not reveal what happens, as it is what the entire, entertaining film is leading up to, but I will say that RATATOUILLE in this closing scene exhibits itself as a humble, but noble film that wishes to entertain and remind, rather than transcend and persuade.
Ratatouille: ★★★★

Midnight in Paris

A defense of Woody Allen would probably consist of telling people that they hadn't seen or remembered his most recent films. For, it is so often said that he's an old hack nowadays, and upon the emergence of his 41st film, MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, easy to say that it's his best film in years. People simply don't remember his better films of the 2000's. I name MATCH POINT, SWEET AND LOWDOWN, and VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA as some of his better films, and they're all relatively recent. MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is, admittedly, a very good work of popular art, and less awkward as his very recent WHATEVER WORKS. Allen accomplishes this consensus-driven triumph by placing a actor who isn't innately neurotic in the neurotic, "Allen" dominated role. Consider WHATEVER WORKS, where the always neurotic Larry David, who is very funny on his HBO show, in that role. But here Allen uses Owen Wilson, and he's given the opportunity to act, and not just be himself. Wilson plays Gil, who's enamored with 1920's Paris, and visiting his fiancé's parents in the great city. He's having a great time with the occasional disturbance of his nostalgia not mixing well with his to-be wife (who's played by Rachel McAdams). Allen keeps Adams and Wilson focused and delivering interesting nuances for a while, and then they meet two old friends who end up shaking everything up. Turns out, one of the friends is a quasi-intellectual, and likes to spew endless amounts of bullshit out of his mouth about Paris, turning it into a tour guide rather than a romanticized vision like Gil. Gil, annoyed, takes off one day to clear his head on a walk. The clock chimes midnight, and an old car comes up. Gil is beckoned in, ends up at a party, and finds himself in 1920's Paris talking to Scott Fitzgerald, Picasso, Gertrude Stein, Hemingway, and a barrage of other famous people. The way that Gil slowly works through his nostalgia is fascinating, and Wilson is great in the role. MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is always subtly funny, and really a great film for quasi-intellectuals and fans of Allen's great PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO. It's not a technically fantastic film, but a small gem within Allen's repertoire.
Midnight in Paris: ★★★1/2

The American Soldier

There's a backstory to this man that doesn't really matter. What matters is that he's a killer, and, inevitably, he's being hunted. He's Ricky (Karl Scheydt), a laconic gun for hire whose low, gruff voice languorously warns his victims that they're about to be shot. He seems heartless, almost bored with people, knocks people around and keeps whisky by his side. In the great Rainer Werner Fassbinder's film THE AMERICAN SOLDIER, Ricky slowly makes his way through his old hometown of Munich, Germany, visiting everyone from whores to victims to his mom. There's so little emotion in his face (even his hat often puts his features in shadows) that you wonder whether he even matters. But he seems to. The three men trying to kill him watch his every move. When he asks for a whore at his hotel room, one of the three sends his girlfriend. She takes offense and plans to run away with Ricky, but we question whether this is even a legitimate care, or just a way out. Fassbinder's film is astonishing in its composition. From a long scene of well choreographed cardplayers to striking black and white images intertwined with brisk camera movements as if to wake us up from a daze, the film is inventive and rather beautiful. Also, Fassbinder's backstory to Ricky as an American turned German killer to be killed by Germans is a grand statement on the motives of nations mired in the seemingly stagnant political convictions of Germany despite their insistence to weed out people like Ricky. I admit that portions of Fassbinder's intentional languor dragged a bit, and for all the style and authenticity and homage to American gangster films, the story was perhaps not so important. Regardless, THE AMERICAN SOLDIER is a compelling piece of work.
The American Soldier: ★★★1/2

Marie Antoinette

Like Alice following the white rabbit to wonderland, an innocent girl who is slightly intrigued is forced into a new world. At only 14, Marie Antoinette (Kirsten Dunst) was given by Austria to France as an essential gift to intertwine to two nations. She became a princess in a day, leaving her old life behind, and becoming a famous gambler, partier, and eventual Queen of France. The tales we've already heard about Antoinette play up her partying nature without much explanation. It has even been said that her husband, who wouldn't have sex with her, was actually gay. Sofia Coppola's much criticized film addresses the motives and feelings of the 14 year old. Coppola and Dunst collaborate to paint the portrait of a naive teenager who was overjoyed at the life of a princess because she knew few other truths of reality. The horrors that Antoinette is put through seem inevitable within the society. The King, played by Jason Schwartzman, does not seem gay, as they could have made him, but reluctant and unsure of himself. He seems to not even want to play a part in the film, and his awkwardness towards Antoinette is endearing. Perhaps he was gay and didn't know what his feelings meant at the time. He was never outwardly searching for gay partners, but perhaps within the environment of the French monarchy, he didn't know that he should. Dunst is so great in her role as Antoinette that we feel for the character. She lived a sad life, and yet her luxury was at the highest caliber. Sofia Coppola's film is great because she does things we have not seen before in a period piece. Firstly, she uses modern day music to tell the story, which makes more sense than you would think because it evokes a mood. I wonder if in some period pieces which tell of 16th century kings and queens, they don't mistakenly use music from the 17th century. How could people from the 21st tell the difference anyway? Music should evoke a mood, and here it does. Coppola also pays little attention to facts, and tells the story from Antoinette's point of view, and as she is unknowledgeable about France's people, so are we. Coppola also uses her art production wonderfully, but in ways that are specific to the story, and in Antoinette's elaborate adornments, it reminds of a teenaged girl aching for expensive clothes. This is a great film, even though it is thrown by the wayside so often because it is not traditional. Coppola's incessant use of unhappy rich people is perhaps a misplaced moral, but she's damn good at making her case.
Marie Antoinette: ★★★★

Meek's Cutoff

MEEK'S CUTOFF is a daring film. It is about a small group of travelers traversing the Oregon trail. They meet a man named Meek (Bruce Greenwood) who knows a sort of shortcut, and takes them on it. It turns out, however, that Meek has no idea what he's talking about, although he talks a lot, and the group finds themselves lost. However, the events that I have just described are not explained in the film, and they have already happened by the time the film starts. For quite a while nobody talks in the film, and nobody makes it clear that they are lost. Most of what I explained above I inferred from what the film presented me with. Not only is such a film demanding of its audience, but it is endearingly trusting of an audience. The film by Kelly Reichardt is very well directed. It would have to be, for there is not much of a story to it, and I can easily see many being bored by it. I was not; instead I discovered a buried tension, and stirring hopelessness that slowly emerged from the landscape. As the group becomes lost, the actors involved convey the realism that Reichardt is attempting to evoke wonderfully. Reichardt has created, with MEEK'S CUTOFF a film that is extremely authentic to what being on the Oregon trail in the 1840's must have been like, and the actors, with their dirty faces often shrouded in shadow, slowly go mad at their predicament. The final scene of MEEK'S CUTOFF is so powerful that it elevates the film from where it was already going. It makes us realize something anew. This film is one that I'm sure will alienate many. It is slowgoing and the ending will dissatisfy many who were willing to go along with it. But if you can stick with it, you'll discover a wonderful gem.
Meek's Cutoff: ★★★1/2

Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror

To name NOSFERATU in this review without the often omitted 'Symphony of Horror' bit would be to disregard the major reflection of the film's mood within its title. For, this 1922 film by German Expressionist director F.W. Murnau is all about mood. It's a silent film, and that's a strength, as its story is the first about vampires to appear on film. It is the inspiration for all of the films of that genre that have come since, based on Bram Stoker's DRACULA, but almost fetishistically concentrating on the eeriest parts of that tale: the boat which Count Orlok travels on to reach the mainland, where his presence alone causes death and terror, the castle which is surrounded by a mad hyena and frightened horses. Murnau's images are sublimely awry and disconcerting, placing images in corners, using negatives as a print, sped up walking as if he imagined in some misplaced dream of scurrying animal-humans. Nosferatu is the vampire: Count Orlok. He is visited by a man from a quiet, pleasant town and asked to move there. This man has been asked to do this by his boss, who happens to be the servant of Orlok. Orlok is strangely invited to wreak havoc, and so he does. Death follows him, and mostly madness does. This idea of an animal-human is so integral to the vampire that its use in Murnau's film makes it a brilliant translation. We are shown spiders and venus fly traps in broken scenes, and that is paralleled obliquely to Nosferatu's presence, transformation, stiffness, evil.
Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror: ★★★★

Inside Job

This film is dense. It attempts to cover a complicated topic, with words and phrases that are, in themselves, quite difficult to understand. And yet, Charles Ferguson's documentary on the 2008 financial crash and the events / acts / people that led up to that crash is concise, timely, and well constructed. Ferguson's film builds its case from the days of Ronald Reagan and deregulation, shows how mortgages and insurance play their part, and ends, brilliantly, with squirming arguments from squirming men. Although Ferguson's film is quite complex, watching the film feels as if you're undertaking a noble cause as a citizen to understand. This is the power of Ferguson's documentary, and in the very sense of that word, it documents the outrage of the 2008 financial crash. This film is not political but it covers political acts, swaying it towards a final outrage that seems rational and intelligent. INSIDE JOB will be the definitive film on what happened in this time, just how Michael Moore's great FAHRENHEIT 9/11 is the definitive film on what happened during its time. It is a full film, undertaking all of the aspects that are important or at the forefront of a situation.
Inside Job: ★★★★

The Navigator

THE NAVIGATOR is a 1924 film by Buster Keaton. In this story, Keaton plays a wealthy and serious man who wishes to wed the woman of his dreams. At the start of the film, he arranges everything for their marriage--even a honeymoon in the tropics. He is so sure of himself that he goes about these plans without even informing the girl of their marriage. When he finally goes to propose however, he is flatly refused. Saddened, he departs the stage, and a plot involving a ship, spies, and the girl's father leaves her, and oddly, Keaton adrift on a ship called the Navigator. From this point, we get a bunch of brilliant jokes involving food, fish, deep sea diving, and cannibals. Again, Keaton employs the balance of luck. At one point, Keaton's character is made a fool by firecrackers and roman candles, but later, those same firecrackers save his life. Also, Keaton had planned to take his girl on a honeymoon in the tropics, and now they are adrift, unmarried, and headed towards a tropical island inhabited by cannibals. Keaton's comedy is brilliant, and THE NAVIGATOR is just one of his brilliant films in the 1920's.
The Navigator: ★★★

Friday

It's not really that FRIDAY is a film that employs every possible stereotype about black people with its storyline, or that it uses bad, speachifying statements on adversity within idiocy, or that everyone in the film is an idiot that makes FRIDAY a bad movie. Rather, it's the laziness that caused these secondary problems that is so pervasive. The film begins, oddly, with Ice Cube playing an unemployed black man who is still living with his idiot parents and bossy sister. He is unemployed (obviously?) because he stole from his last job and was fired on Thursday, which was his day off. Now it's Friday, and in his house and everyone gets ready and talk about nothing in particular, Ice Cube's character (as his name is not impressionable enough to remember) eats cereal, but with no milk. This leads to the only good joke in the film, where Ice Cube's stoner, drug dealer friend who is so odd that he could not possibly exist, tells Ice Cube that he doesn't have anything in his house that fits with anything else. "You got peanut butter but no jelly, crackers but no cheese, cereal but no milk!" In the morning as Ice Cube looks over his cereal and complains to his parents even though he is still living in their house and eating up their food anyway, his father demands that he look for work, leaves for his job (a dogcatcher), returns after being bitten in the ass after being gone for 20 minutes, and sits around the house for the rest of the day. This is the kind of laziness that FRIDAY has, where, just to have him deliver a supposedly profound statement about adversity later, he returns home after being at work for 20 minutes. Not only that, but he never questions Ice Cube about why he didn't look for work. Instead, Ice Cube and the stoner / dealer friend from earlier, laze about smoking weed and looking at weird people across the street. Again: laziness. This film has no plot. Nothing happens for a good hour, and then Ice Cube and the friend realize that they smoked so much weed, that the dealer from whom it came from expects his money's worth because the duo were supposed to sell the weed, not smoke it. For a movie that isn't about anything, you would think that FRIDAY could be slightly funny, but it is so mired in an alternate reality where things are odd and that means funny, that it is not only obnoxious and juvenile, but weird and obliquely offensive. Never does the film push it in your face that everyone is unemployed or a drug dealer or an idiot, but when you get an hour into it, that realization slowly occurs. Also, it's not like Ice Cube is some great exception to this, and any payoffs of laughter or plot occur so late in the film that any sane or sober person would have walked out on this lazy farce to have seen them.
Friday: ★1/2