Open Water

I had to see OPEN WATER after seeing SILENT HOUSE. The same directors for both films, I loved SILENT HOUSE, although I felt as if I viewed it as what it had turned out to be rather than what it had been intended to be. There are a lot of failures in that film, but I feel as if they actually strengthen the film. With OPEN WATER though, I see only weaknesses. The film is one of those 'now what if THIS happened' kind of films in which some really obviously ridiculous event happens, and we're manipulated into believing that it could have happened. In this case, a couple on a scuba diving expedition go out with around 18 other passengers to the middle of the ocean. Due to a botched head count, the two are left behind, and everyone returning on the small boat inexplicably forget about them. Did the couple not have a single interaction on the way over or are we supposed to erroneously and unfoundedly believe that people are that inattentive? Nevertheless, the couple are lost in the open water. The current moves them in the direction they don't want to be going, they have no food, and the woman, Susan, decides that drinking ocean water couldn't be all that bad. But the problem with OPEN WATER is that the filmmakers have decided that shoddiness is equivalent to rawness, and their bilious camera-style on the open water waves following the bobbing heads of the Susan and Daniel. There's some talk about what to do, but I feel as if the filmmakers put too much credence in their subject. One of the major conceits of the film is that these are just two regular people, doomed at sea, but what is "regular"? I found these characters so "regular" that it was irregular, and there was no specificity to their lives. They just become symbols for the weak horror device of 'it could be you!" And then the film ends and I've been bored. Watching two people bob around in the water [SPOILER] and then die is pretty boring.

★★ out of Five

The Village

Nearly a universally regarded M. Night Shyamalan failure, THE VILLAGE has gained a terrible reputation, primarily for having a twist ending that was far from satisfactory. I disagree. What do we expect out of the twist ending? How can you not be satisfied by one is what I'm really asking. Someone who asks for a different ending, or a different reality, is asking for a different film. I've always gone along with a twist, despite how shocking or not shocking some are. But A) A 2 minute bit at the end shouldn't change the 118 at the beginning that were pretty good and B) If that's how it is, that's how it is. In THE VILLAGE, I even appreciated the twist, and thought that it was earned and pleasing. The film tells of an odd clan of 19th century villagers living exclusively within the village. Nobody trespasses into the woods, and there's a weird offbeat color sensibility that all the townspeople share. Shyamalan sets up a nice tone of dark dread, as animal skins begin to turn up, and everyone begins to fear a presence from the woods, and whisper of "Those Who Are Not Spoken Of" (who, incidentally, are spoken of quite a bit). Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix) is at the head of a new generation in the village, who are increasingly interested in convincing the group of elders (Sigourney Weaver, William Hurt, Brendan Gleeson) to allow them to venture into the woods to reach other towns. Lucius and a blind girl named Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard) start to flirt with marriage, and as this progresses, the village idiot (Adrien Brody) becomes increasingly agitated. From the start of the film, though, it becomes clear that someone will eventually leave the village, and we'll eventually learn what's up with the jumpy village. The payoff is fine, I wasn't bothered by it, and if you are, I would implore looking at the earlier bits of the film, which are entertainingly directed in a lively fashion. Greatly assisting Shyamalan here is his cast and his cinematographer, Roger Deakins. Both lend a perfect amount of creepiness to the film.

★★★ out of Five

Man on Fire

MAN ON FIRE is a thrilling, unapologetic, two-part action film from Tony Scott, who blossomed into a great director at the dawn of the 21st century. MAN ON FIRE, while not reaching the brilliance and balance of UNSTOPPABLE or DEJA VU, at least hints at the brilliance to come. MAN ON FIRE centers around a quasi-true story of a bodyguard who tracks down the kidnappers and thus, kidnapping rings, in Mexico. Intentionally or not, a very Christian theme seeps into the movie when, in the first part of the film, Creasy (Denzel Washington) the bodyguard attempts to shoot himself and the bullet fails. Taking this as a sign that he's meant to do something, Creasy stays on his current, throwaway job for a man of his skills, and befriends the girl he's looking after, Pita (Dakota Fanning). Living only for this connection, Creasy is devastated when she is kidnapped and killed in a following ransom-deal gone wrong. Committed to killing everyone involved, and seeing that action as the reason the bullet didn't kill him from earlier, Creasy goes around Mexico shooting up places because he has nothing to lose. Scott's camera tricks, lighting, and pace come into great use here in contrast to the first part of the film which develops the characters more than any generic action film. There's some real contradiction, though, in the second half, which does the movie good, and makes for kinetic fun. The last scene, especially, is well staged and finely executed by melding all of the things that worked about the film from earlier into a few shots. MAN ON FIRE has its flaws, like why the unstoppable Creasy of the second half of the film was unable to save Pita in the first half, or a couple of too-over-the-top sequences that actually burden the film, but overall these flaws pale in front of the film's strengths. Also, the film has been attacked for the sadistic nature of a seemingly human character in the second half, but I would argue that Creasy's sadism is very human and the reaction any father would have to the kidnapping and killing of their daughter. As we learn in the film too, that's the relationship the two have. This is great fun, and occasionally emotionally powerful.
Man on Fire: ★★★1/2

Vera Drake

VERA DRAKE is a strong, powerful film of naturalism by Mike Leigh. Starring Imelda Staunton as Vera Drake, Leigh creates in a wonderful meeting of talents, a natural period piece. Set in 1950, Vera is a happy older woman living with her husband and children. Her daughter is being courted by an awkward but well-meaning neighbor boy, and her entire family is shown as a generally kind and gracious one. Vera, however, harbors a secret. She is an abortionist. As provoking as this sounds though, this slow and unostentatious revelation and way of life is portrayed with such obviousness and matter of factness, and Vera is shown to be so well-meaning, that even detractors to the practice would have to make admissions here. Vera believes that she's helping these women, and in many ways, she really is. Her practice is obviously seen as sinister by the people and the times though, and in many ways VERA DRAKE is about how well-meaning people can be screwed by a system that holds power over them and even members of the system on her side. From a technical point of view, VERA DRAKE is impeccable. The production design, lighting, acting is all superb: the world that Leigh creates is believable and clean. This makes the film even more of a tragedy. Small instances and small hardships are stressed. Despite the punishment for Vera's practice being seemingly minor, in the scope of her life, it's massive. Also present here is something that exists in a rarity in contemporary cinema: burrowing into all of the unattractive aspects of a subject. For despite Vera Drake being seemingly kind, there is a sinister nature to the way her process is filmed, her detachment from her subjects, her children's hatred toward her, the questionable loyalty of the family's best friend. VERA DRAKE is a pretty great film, modern and relevant, but also filmed with talent and intelligence.
Vera Drake: ★★★★

South Park Season 8

I consider "South Park" a great show, comedically exhibiting complex issues as well as some silly fun. This is a guide to season 8.
Good Times with Weapons: A little grating upon repeating viewings, but funny in how it shows the parents as idiots, and interesting in its focus on weapons.
Up the Down Steroid: On Cheating In Sports
The Passion of the Jew: On Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ
You Got F'd in the A: Ridiculously parodying dance competitions / movies
Awesome-O: Stand-alone hilarity
The Jeffersons: On Michael Jackson
Goobacks: On Immigration
Douche and Turd: On Voting
Something Wall-Mart This Way Comes: On Wall-Mart / Corporations
Pre-School: Stand-alone hilarity
Quest for Ratings: On the News
Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset: On Whores
Cartman's Incredible Gift: On Clairvoyance
Woodland Critter Christmas: Stand-alone hilarity

The Intruder (L'intrus)

Reckless, Unfocussed Thoughts on an Enigmatic Film

Claire Denis' THE INTRUDER is a French film of pure poetry. Reminiscent of T.S. Eliot, her images and storyline seems at first impenetrable. In THE INTRUDER, Denis continues her line of work centered around racism, and race in general. Her main character, Louis Tebor, is a man who lives in (or near) the woods with his two dogs. One night in the darkness he hears stirring outside, leaves his bed, and kills an intruder. He hides the body, he dreams of mass torture / violence, and we can see that he has just had a heart transplant or open heart surgery. He is searching for his son, who is an islander boy he abandoned, he wants to leave all of his money to this boy, he releases his dogs into the wild, he cruelly looks about the screen. This is what happens in THE INTRUDER, and the sequence of events and connections were not always clear. This was only my first time viewing Denis' film, but I could tell that multiple viewings would clarify or enhance the experience. Accompanying THE INTRUDER is a wonderfully dark and modern score: one of the best I've heard to accompany a modern film. Despite its complications, it is not difficult to understand the main narrative at work: 1. Louis Tebor must accept his heart, but his son cannot accept him. 2. This is a visual film which is supposed to haunt its viewer. I concede that I did not fully understand THE INTRUDER, but I was aware of its greatness that hid beneath layered storytelling and images. I will, without a doubt, return to this film, but for now it was merely good.
The Intruder (L'intrus): ★★★

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

Wes Anderson's films are generally pretty great. His style is unique and perfected, and in films like THE ROYAL TENNENBAUMS or THE DARJEELING LIMITED, his approach results in greatness. THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU, which features many of Anderson's frequent collaborators is not one of his great films. It follows Steve Zissou (Bill Murray) of the title, who goes on underwater adventures and has made countless documentaries on them. Now however, Steve and Team Zissou are all washed up. They're close to being broke, one of their long-time shipmates, Esteban, has been eaten by a mythological shark, and their latest film THE JAGUAR SHARK Pt. 1 was a complete failure. Steve still has his heart in adventuring, and two promising people show up before he sets out to film part two of the Jaguar shark series. One of these is Steve's son Ned (Owen Wilson). Steve isn't connected well to his son, and we learn more and more about Steve's active separation from him, but Ned seems like a good subplot for Steve's next film, and he's briskly inducted into Team Zissou (after Steve changes Ned's name legally to Kingsley Zissou). The other promising person entering the team is a reporter doing a cover story on Steve. She's played by Cate Blanchett, and stirs up Steve throughout the voyage. THE LIFE AQUATIC seems to have so many things going for it: Anderson's direction and quirks to start. But the film is firstly mired by bad sound editing, long stretches of nothing, and the realization that if Steve Zissou is washed up and boring to an idiot public in the movie, then how is it any more entertaining to watch what is essentially a "behind the scenes with Steve Zissou" film, if he considers these scenes unworthy of his documentary? There is undeniable charm and excitement that exists in pockets of the film, but they're too often on the periphery.
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou: ★★

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: ★★

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 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: ★★★

House of Flying Daggers

Perhaps too reminiscent of CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON, which came only four years before HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS, and perhaps trying to hard to be profound in its close, HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS is nevertheless an extremely entertaining martial-arts film that is not just about martial arts. As fun as it is to watch Jet Li and Jackie Chan flip about, those films are too one-note, too orchestrated. HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS is surprising, lurid, violent, and devious. The plot is complicated: a blind girl who was working as a dancer at a brothel attempts to assassinate the captain of the corrupt Chinese dynasty. She is defeated by him, however, and ends up in jail, where she is rescued by a man who may or may not be on her side. The film likes to take us down many different paths that it suddenly refuses to finish by showing that what we have just seen wasn't how things were. There is romance, and there are scenes of devious trickery involving fake deaths and betrayal. These are all put around intermittent battle sequences that are reminiscent of the playfulness of CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON, but rooted in more reality than that film. It would have been easy to create a stupid plot around this film, for the action sequences and the film's art production is what is most attractive, but the filmmakers created a complicated plot around what can be viewed as simply-executed action sequences. Meaning, CGI is easy to create if you know what you're doing with it, but deciding to create an exciting plot around exciting scenes is something rare. HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS is quite a good film.
House of Flying Daggers: ★★★1/2

Closer

Mike Nichols' film CLOSER is about four people whom you would never want to meet. There's Dan (Jude Law) who writes the obituaries of people who are still alive, Alice (Natalie Portman) who's a stripper, Anna (Julia Roberts) a professional photographer, and Larry (Clive Owen) a dermatologist. Dan has just written a book, and he's being photographed for the jacket by Anna. He starts to play with her though, teasing her, seducing her. They kiss, and the devious Dan brings his girlfriend Alice into the room, asking if Anna will photograph her. From this point, the lives of these characters are intermingled, and the dermatologist, Larry comes into the picture when he meets Anna at an aquarium. Everyone in the film wants to have sex with each other, and they use a million different key words of seduction to convince each other that they love them. The film spans years, and as we delve deeper into each character's shady lives, we see that they are all detestable people: crude, but smart. The last two adjectives could also describe this entire film, and at one point, the characters began to seem ridiculous and idealistic to portray a cultural degeneration. This is Nichols' miscalculation. For his character are all so well played that they should have been able to speak for themselves. CLOSER is still an entertaining film, but it is not as profound as it thinks it is. The entertainment value and the strong performances outweigh whatever delusions it has, and it ends up being a pretty good fantasy film, exhibiting the different sides of a kinky-sex that people would like to think of.

Closer: ★★★

Undertow

UNDERTOW is the third film from David Gordon Green. His films are recognizable and textile, and the added bits of implanted importance in UNDERTOW make it all the better. The best way I can describe the film is as a mix of the plot of NIGHT OF THE HUNTER, a sultry southern evening, and cautionary tales of family. The film is concerned with the lives of two strange and isolated children living under a demanding father (Dermot Mulroney). One day, their lives are changed when their absent uncle shows up, tells a tale of mexican gold, and begins to chase the frightened children. There really isn't much to UNDERTOW except emotion and appearance. It could be called a slow film, but its nice to revel in moments rather than skip them by. Green creates a poetic and engrossing film that never feels pretentious, and in its awkwardness it is, perhaps, grand. The way that Green creates a romance at the beginning and adds all the tension to be mustered within it is brilliant, as later on we see how a seemingly simple act can doom a character later on. There's a sense of constant renewal and returning in UNDERTOW, as if the boys have returned to a truth, or where they were going to end up inevitably. UNDERTOW is almost as good as Green's great first film, GEORGE WASHINGTON, and has many of the same dark themes.

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

Fahrenheit 9/11

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

Shaun of the Dead

Simon Pegg stars in this halfway-decent zombie film. Like most of them, the beginning is very strong. Here we get a sort of oblivious Pegg who doesn't realize for quite a while that everyone is turning into zombies because they seem to act as much or matter as much anyway. Pegg's character has a little posse of friends, and through quick shots and high energy camerawork, the first 2/3 of the film are quite good. Again, it's the ending of the film that undermines it. For, while being an effective spoof piece, it ends up being an effective genre piece in the realm of zombies. However, that means that it falls into cliché and the last thirty minutes is filled with all of those. The film is worth seeing for the great first two thirds, but the end is a pretty huge disappointment.
Shaun of the Dead: ✰✰1/2

Dawn of the Dead

The remake of Dawn of the Dead is made by Zack Snyder, who is a sometimes good director and sometimes superfluous in his deliveries. This film starts well, it has it's own tinge of humor and grossness as a quite appealing Sara Polley flees from her zombie husband. She, and a group of others take refuge in a shopping mall. They barricade the doors and spend their days stealing from the shops, shooting celebrity zombies from the roof, and planning eventual escape. We get a lot of pretty stupid shit in the middle though, like when a bitten pregnant woman has a zombie baby. It's admittedly pretty fun in the middle, and a lot of the killings are more entertaining than usual because these zombies can run (contrary to the classic zombie). Eventually the group makes a sort of super bus to take them out and to an island (where they feel they'll be safe). And as the film goes from the great first scene to average to boring, the film becomes disappointing. And then the sadism comes out as practically every character dies. And then the film does something unforgivable. It finishes in the credits. We see them go off in the boat to happiness, and then the credits start and everyone dies. Real appealing. Real smart... Dawn of the Dead is an essentially unnecessary and forgettable, especially cruel film with nothing to it. It's on supercharge but not all the better for it. We've really just seen it all before. Yawn.
Dawn of the Dead: ✰✰

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy

Anchorman solidified the status of Will Ferrell as a very funny, over-the-top kind of comedian. He plays the kinds of characters who are so stupid, they eventually just sort of start blubbering to the complexity of the world. In Anchorman, Ferrell plays Ron Burgundy: a popular tv anchor at the height of his career. In fact, Ferrell is just part of the Channel 4 News Team. It includes the likes of Paul Rudd as Brian Fantana (an arrogant womanizing long-haired field reporter), David Koechner as 'Champ' (the chauvinistic sportscaster), and Steve Carrell as Brick (a weatherman with an I.Q. of 48). The film is so aware of how stupid it's being that it's hilarious. It's very, very funny, and features a plethora of creative scenes (like when the rival news teams have a street fight and Brick kills a man with a trident). But there's some story too, which focuses upon a woman anchor (Christina Applegate) who is joining channel four. The men are at first pissed off that a woman would be an anchor and as they all harass her, she starts to fight back. The tension within Anchorman is great, the actors are great, the script is great. It's one of the best comedies of the 00's.
Anchorman: ✰✰✰✰

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Prisoner of Azkaban tells of Harry's third year at Hogwarts. Once again he is in great danger, for a traitor to his parents has escaped from Azkaban (the wizard prison). Also, Harry is met with fear in the form of the ghastly dementors, who suck the life and soul out of people. This is a very different sort of Harry Potter film. It also marks a point in the franchise where you would have had to have seen previous Potter films in order to fully enjoy and understand it. The movie is directed by a very talented director: Alfonso Cuaron. But Cuaron brings a very unique style to the Potter films. It is probably the best stylistic Harry Potter film. The way the the palate is darker, the camera is quick and restless, and the older Potter characters themselves makes the movie edgy and mystifying. This Potter movie is also the first to stray away from the books, but having not read the book in several years, the film seemed to get all of the important details in. Some very well done scenes are in the end, where time travel is done logically and cleverly, keeping the pace of the film steady, which is a hard thing to do when time is indefinite. I also must mention that the actor to play Professor Lupin was a damn good choice, he gets just the right tone. As does the always good and perfect Alan Rickman as Snape. There's a scene here that foreshadows the future with Snape, and it's  simple, but deep. The Prisoner of Azkaban is a very interesting movie, its not as lively as the earlier films, but it still gets across what a fan would want to see, for no matter how dark the films and books get, the characters are still witty and amiable. It's a worthy entry to the franchise.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: ★★★1/2

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

This film is about loss, and what we choose to believe. It is rather grandiose in its intent to materialize what we choose to believe into mechanized, banal decisions. The film is not a love story, although it has been called that. It is not anything. It is like its dreams, ideas popping up and shattering down. The film stars Jim Carrey (in a role that is better than anything he has done and ever will do) and Kate Winslet. There are a few other characters played by Kirsten Dunst and Tom Wilkinson. To reveal how people are made to forget and which characters are made to forget certain things, would be spoiling the movie. Thus, I describe the experience of watching it. It is extremely creative and original, it almost seeps with it, pleasing its viewers at its wit and ideas. It is also very simple, despite the plot's complexity. For the ideas behind the film are simple. They are ideas of loss, creativity, strength, love, pain. But these emotions are at such a high level of familiarity that they become very prominent to the movie's success. It is a movie that applies to most everyone. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is one the best movies of the last decade.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: ★★★★