The Long Goodbye (1973)

Directed by: Robert Altman
Starring: Elliot Gould

I've made the mistake of waiting a couple days to write my review on this movie. I'm sitting trying to think of something to say and all I can think of is that this movie is very forgetable. A large part of the reason I write reveiws is so I can remember a thing or two about the many movies I see. Well, The Long Goodbye stuck with me for about 20 minutes after seeing it.

Elliot Gould plays Phillip Marlowe, a private detective in Los Angeles who can't help but raise comparisons to Jack Nicholson's J.J. Gittes of Chinatown. They are both wise-cracking, laid back detectives who get caught up in a case they really had little business being caught up in. The major difference between the two films however, is that Chinatown's mystery in interesting. The Long Goodbye opens with a couple of mysterious deaths into which Marlowe decides to look. As a result of this, his life no longer consists of simple interactions with his nudist neighbors and his cat, but with cheap mobsters looking for their money. During Marlowe's first confrontation with these mobsters, Marlowe is exposed to a scene so reminiscent of Polanski's cameo in Chinatown that I forgot for a moment what film I was watching.

I don't like making the inevitable comparison to Chinatown as few films can live up to it, however, The Long Goodbye compares in just about everyway. Before even revealing that our protagonist is a private eye some five minutes into the movie, I felt the presence of Chinatown all over this film. It had that late 60's, early 70's Los Angeles look and feel. It had meloncholy music that created a similar tone. In short, its impossible not to compare the two.

Speaking of the music, the title song, The Long Goodbye, is just about all the music we get. Peformed by a variety of artists in a variety of styles throughout the film, The Long Goodbye is easily the most annoying aspect of the film.

While The Long Goodbye fails to live up to its brother, it is a decent chase to find out who-dun-it. Elliot Gould is very good, comical and sympathetic throughout. And to give the film credit, it was released a year before Chinatown, so maybe its more of a father figure to Chinatown rather than a brother... or maybe its both. (Hilarious!)

While interesting in some ways and while the performances are quite good, The Long Goodbye remains what I first said about it, forgetable.

**

Cloverfield (2008)

Directed by: Matt Reeves
Starring: Michael Stahl-David

Cloverfield is what it is, nothing more and nothing less. And what is great about it is that it doesn't try to be anything more or less. With a few small exceptions, the movie never strays from its intent and given its style, this was probably the most important thing the filmmakers needed to focus on.

It is basically a monster movie. A huge, CGI monster attacks and destroys New York City and threatens the lives of everyone, including our main protagonists who's going away party is interupted by the attack. In the midst of the attack, rather than running away like everyone else, Rob (Stahl-David) needs to go find his friend Beth in Midtown... towards, rather than away from the monster. While his motives and actions are cliche, they don't emphasis them. Rob says something along the lines of, "this is not me being crazy... I'm going and that's all there is to it." And they go. So rather than having a cliche race to save his love, we have a conflict that works and creates the only necessary added dimension.

The biggest critism of this film is its way of being shot. That being that its all handheld. There are times when it makes you dizzy but I think that they suspense it creates trumps that problem. The fact that we see the monster for a few seconds, but then pan over because the camera operator needs to see where he's running consistently made me want to see more of the monster or more of the destruction. On top of that, we are satisfied at the end by the amount that we do see.

This film is what it is and for that reason, its very easy to enjoy. At the same time however, its not much more than a monster movie. There's no real depth to it and it does eventually have you longing for a conclusion, whatever it may be. Even at a short running time, we're ready for it to end when it does. Overall, its an exciting action movie but again... is nothing more.

***

The Wire (2002) TV

Created by: David Simon
Starring: Dominic West

I've been thinking about how to write this review for a little while. I've just been so anxious for the series to end so I could finally step back from it and dissect it. The aspect of The Wire that has distinguiushed it throughout and has generated the bulk of its acclaim is the very same thing that I believe to be its biggest flaw.

I've tried to decide how to review a TV series and can't really figure out the best way to go about it. Do I take it season by season or do I review it as a whole? A little of both probably makes the most sense but to begin, Season 1 may not have hooked me in the way some other shows have hooked me but I enjoyed it emmensely. Season 2, while starting slowly, was just as good and at that point, based on what I'd seen and what I expected having heard such acclaim for the following seasons, I started to believe the hype. Season 3 was a disappointment. Easily the worst of the five seasons. Season 4 wasn't much better. Season 5 was. That's about all I'll say as far as reviewing the seasons seperately until I bring up one of my theories on how the series progressed.

The Wire takes place in Baltimore and as much as the creators want the city to be a character, unless you live in Baltimore, it really can't be. We're almost too deep into the city for it to become a character. Every street corner seems the same and I could never distinguish one district from another, never mind try to figure out which drug dealer staked claim on which one and which precinct policed which one. Also, while the detail that goes into the police and the criminals is immense, the world existing outside of those two parties is rarely touched upon. The civilians are not focused on with the same intensity that everyone else is thus we're unable to really see how the city functions.

Jimmy McNulty (Dominic West) is in most ways the star of the show. It'd be impossible to go into every character in the show as the show does a very good job in creating intricacies in each one of them. McNulty is, however, the deepest of all the characters and rather than going into what makes him tick, I'll point out how West's performance as McNulty is possibly one of the most underrated TV performances ever. Critics go on and on about how great this show is and so often leave out how very good the performances are throughout the series. The fact that not only are there are so many actors that have significant roles, but that many of them are kids is really something at which to marvel.

Dominic West and Wendell Pierce are truely an original TV duo that have gone widely unrecognized in the midst of the shows acclaim. Amy Ryan's small role is nothing short of great. Idris Elba, better known now for his work in The Office, is as brilliant as he is intimidating and Clarke Peters makes us all wish we could solve a crime like him. Despite these performances and all that I left unmentioned, the true stars of this show were supporting characters Bubbles played brilliantly by Andre Royo and Omar played by Michael K. Williams. Bubbles is the friendly dope fiend while Omar is the unforgiving, shotgun toting badass that rogues the streets of Baltimore. Royo and Williams rarely if ever appear on screen together but steal every scene in which they appear.

The performances that have showered The Wire with my praises are not enough to save this series in my mind however. As I mentioned, that which has made this series so widely acclaimed is, in my mind, its biggest flaw and that is its realism. To quote a favorite film of mine, Adaptation... "Nothing happens in the world? Are you out of your fucking mind?" Well, while The Wire doesn't necessarily suggest that nothing happens in the world completely, what they do instead, is make you watch nothing happen while things occur outside in the world. The Wire tells the very basic cops vs. criminals tale by exploring both sides of the war on drugs. This is a drama that's been done in many different styles but is intriguing enough to create drama. Real gritty drama. What The Wire chooses to do rather than create drama is to re-enact it in a sense. The show strives for such realism that oversteps its boundries and forces its audience to watch too many scenes with no drama, all while knowing full well that the drama is out there and the show is capable of showing it and keeping its audience engaged.

A two-hour movie can get away with having segments in which the drama is absent in order to build a realistic story. That way, when the drama unfolds, we're not watching an unrealistic event. In a TV series when we are only exposed to an hour of drama at a time, there needs to be more to engage us. I can't watch three episodes of paperwork by the DA's office so they can get a Wire tap. I need to see the Wire tap.

In short, The Wire is too realistic. If I go back to breaking the series down, season by season I feel like I have an idea of how this happened. Whether I'm right or wrong (probably wrong) I feel like its a plausible scenario. Season 1 was drama packed. It was exciting and it was engaging. Season 2 was equal in just about every aspect. On top of being exciting and engaging it was realistic beyond anything I'd ever seen. There in lies the fate of The Wire. Critics raved about the show, not necessarily about its excitement and about how engaging it was because, after all, we've seen shows that are exciting and engaging. Shows this realistic... this is new. So the show's creators recognized how much people responded to the realism and I think perhaps that its very possible, they began to think the could have the show survive on realism alone. And this is where Season 3 fails and where Season 4 fails again. Then in Season 5, perhaps they realized, that while seasons 3 and 4 still receieved positive feedback, it wasn't the same at their first two seasons. Why? Too much realism, not enough excitement.

So why is this show so universally acclaimed? The most likely answer is that I just don't have the taste for it that so many other people did. I do have another theory however, that I think is about as rediculous as my suggestion in the last paragraph. I think that in everyone's subconscious, a show like The Wire is too much to for them to follow. The show is so smartly written and so similar to the real world that people believe that if they don't like it then its above them, that they aren't smart enough to handle the real world. While this may sound rediculous as I suggested, The Wire does present that kind of internal conflict. Its often so frustrating while watching the show that you can't really follow the subtleties of the situations because they are situations that happen in a world outside of your own. So to combat that frustration, your mind pretends to understand it, thus making it engaging.

Whether my theories and opinions of this show are agreed with or even accepted is irrelevent. To be completely honest, I'm happy to be done with the show. It was draining to watch and despite all the great things about it I truely think that the creator's intentions for the show didn't translate well. Part of me wants to say that the series was disappointing and in a way it was, but as I mentioned before, the most probably explanation for the acclaim for this show was personal taste. I think that perhaps, overall, it just wasn't my cup of tea.

***

Primal Fear (1996)

Directed by: Gregory Hoblit
Starring: Richard Gere

It's been years since I've seen Primal Fear but I remembered what I thought was enough to analyze it as a pretty typical courtroom drama with good to great performances but a lack of substance. It is in fact a pretty typical courtroom drama with good to great performances however, lacking substance it does not.

The film opens in cliche fashion. Martin Vail (Gere) is a headline chasing ex-prosecutor turned defense attorney whom we learn made the switch because he believes in the goodness of people. Well, while it may take some time to believe this, by the time he tells us this, it is very hard not to believe him. He's representing a mobster, whom we don't know much about, but Vail is charming and smart so we like him and it doesn't matter. His mobster client takes a backseat when he takes on the major case representing Aaron Stampler (Edward Norton) who is charged with murdering the Archbishop.

Long story short, as we wonder whether or not Stampler is innocent so does Vail and cliche's aside, we have the opening to an intriguing story.

I was desperately looking for something about this film that would suggest that my one-time fondness for this film was based only on performances as Gere is good and Norton is great and well-deserving of his Oscar nomination. As I looked, what I found in leui of flaws, was a growing excitement for what was going to happen next. Having seen the movie before, my excitement would be a first time viewers suspense, anxiety or... okay, excitement.

There are flaws unfortunately. Some of the supporting characters as so unestablished that you spend the majority of their screen time trying to figure out who they are. In particular, Shaughnessy (John Mahoney) who evidently is the State's Attorney but doesn't have enough backstory to even get a first name. Stampler's girlfriend Linda and friend Alex are important small characters that don't need much time alotted to them but not enough imformation is conveyed during that time.

I was pleased that I liked this movie. Not in the sense that I'm always happy when I see a good movie but because I expected to find so much wrong with it and didn't, I was pleased.

***1/2

The Hangover (2009)

Directed by: Todd Phillips
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms

I saw The Hangover based on the suprising array of good reviews rather than trusting my instinct that screamed that this would be a terrible movie. My instinct, however, was based on what I could see in the trailer... these reviews were based on what people had seen the film so I went into it cautiously but perhaps optimistic.

How dare I ignore my instinct. Todd Phillips has made me laugh before both in Road Trip and more recently in Old School. Clearly, Phillips is aware of the fact the he has made people laugh with Old School as he essentially did his best to subtley recreate the experience to the point where not only are there appearences from successful characters showing up in The Hangover, but they pretty much have the same lines of dialogue in order to talk their friend out of getting married.

Reusing jokes isn't the biggest crime this film commits. After all, Apatow joints essentially use the same funny people doing pretty much the same funny things all the time. No, the biggest crime this film commits is the nature of its jokes. Its not that they are too crude, and its not that they aren't funny, in fact, often times they are both crude and funny, that's okay. They are just too far over the top, all the time, for the the whole movie, the whole excrutiatingly long running over the top joke. Notice my exaggeration got somewhat obnoixious there. Well, the over the top, exaggerated jokes got obnoxious really early on in this film to the point where I'd lost so much interest in the jokes themselves I think my mind started treating the film like a drama.

Once I start watching a comedy like a drama all I recognize is the poor acting, the lack of abilities to deliver lines, whether they are jokes or not. Bradley Cooper has for the third time strengthened my argument that he is a terrible actor and an even worse comedic actor. Ed Helms is funny enough but the disaster that is the film surrounding him only makes me long for The Office so I can see him being funny in something good. And Zach Galifianakis, well Galifianakis is just about the only silver lining throughout this film. He makes the subtle jokes that consistently land, the ones that keep me laughing until the outrageous moment occurs where I'm supposed to fall off my seat in hysterics. The problem is, those outrageous moments far outweigh Galifianakis' contribution to the film and even one funny person, being funny can't save this one.

*

American Movie (1999)

Directed by: Chris Smith

As an independent filmmaker so much of this film is relatable. As a human being not from Wisconsin, very little is relatable. This description however, is what makes American Movie a balanced and entertaining documentary.

Mark has spent all the money in his name, he's behind on all his bills and has massive credit card debt all for the sake of making a film he believes in. That's what its all about. Money isn't important, doing something you love doing and that you're good at is what is most important in life. Despite the fact that Mark is the second weirdest person I've ever seen on film or otherwise, he knows what he's doing, he's good at making movies and he loves doing it so much that he'll do it at all costs.

To make his movie, he recruits friends and family as the cast and crew and despite some of their best efforts to help, they are amateurs, they don't know what they are doing and they ultimately can't put their best efforts into the film.

The weirdest person I've ever seen has to be Mark's friend Ken. I can't believe that any real person is the way he is. He speaks slowly about the weirdest thing and whether it is supposed to be or not, its hilarious. The mix of humor and realism surrounding these characters makes the film work well. However, some parts of this movie are so, so weird that it is distracting, thus preventing it from being great. I left my viewing of this film thinking more about how weird the characters were and less about the making of the movie.

***

The Insider (1999)

Directed by: Michael Mann
Starring Russell Crowe, Al Pacino

--This review may contain spoilers--

If I had just watched the first half of this movie, I would have only listed one starring actor above. The reason being that The Insider spends a significant amount of time telling the story of Jeffrey Wigand (Crowe), a former scientist for a major Tobacco company called Brown and Williamson. After having been fired and signing a confidentiality agreement, he's faced with the dilemma of whether or not to share the secrets he knows about the tobacco industry with CBS' 60 Minutes. The results of Wigand's decision result in the loss of both his family and his reputation... we think.

The second half of this movie shifts and focuses on Lowell Bergman (Pacino) who up until the midway point was a supporting character. Bergman, a producer for 60 Minutes and the man who discovers that Wigand has something to say and fights for his right to say it. Throughout the first half of the film we accept the fact that what Wigand has to say is credible because we are convinced that the man helping him, Bergman, is a credible journalist. So once Wigand discovers that certain parties will stop at nothing to discredit him, he begins to question Bergman's credibility and integrity and thus, we have the story of Lowell Bergman.

The type of shift is rare in films but is seamless in The Insider. Both characters are interesting enough have as your main protagonist and we're curious as to what will have to both of them. The problem with the shift is that because the film closes with Bergman as our main character, we don't get a clear idea of what happens to Wigand. We see bits and pieces of his life after the 60 Minutes segment airs and we read the title cards at the end but we're left wondering to a certain extent.

On top of not knowing what happens to Wigand, I also found it difficult to relate fully to him throughout. I recognized the position he was in and that alone was sufficient reason for his conflicts. What lacked for me as an audience member was the threat that he experienced. A bullet in the mailbox, a death threat on the computer and some footprints in the backyard didn't really provide enough tension and suspense to make me feel like he really was in so much danger that his wife was forced to leave him, take his kids and leave him to fight this battle alone.

The flaws of this film are either so minor or so irrelevant that its hard to point them out more consistently than good qualities. I'd be writing all day if I were to delve into the performances and the cinematography and the realism that this film has. Suffice it to say that The Insider is one of the finest films I've ever seen and that it took repeated viewings to even find the subtle flaws it had.

****1/2

American History X (1998)

Directed by: Tony Kaye

Starring: Edward Norton

At one time, American History X easily cracked my top five favorite films of all time. Having seen many films since and now have watched it again I still consider it a very good movie, but not nearly a top five, ten or maybe even twenty.

Edward Norton stars as Derek Vinyard, a rehabilitated white supremacist trying to save his younger brother Danny (Edward Furlong) from following in his footsteps. Norton is great throughout but not nearly as great as I remembered. There are certain scenes where he shines brilliantly and is clearly deserving of his Oscar nomination but then there are others where I feel like he falls short of carrying scene. I'm not sure if it was over acting in some cases or underacting. Either way, it was somewhat disappointing not to see the performance I had once held up so high.

On the other side of things, as I watched this film again, I noticed some of the other performances. Edward Furlong was great throughout. I saw an innocence in him that whether or not it was intentional worked incredibly. He really summed up his character and made him so sympathetic. Elsewhere, Avery Brooks was fantastic as was Stacey Keach.

There is a glaring contradiction that exists, particularly at the beginning of the movie but resonates throughout. The film does at times come off as preachy, never in the sense that we should feel overwhelmed but its important to realize that its not telling us that racism is good, despite how well Derek articulates it. So when we sit and watch him argue with Elliot Gould over the Rodney King case, we recognize that while his argument is impressive, its flawed. We can't possibly side with him or his cause. Well earlier in the film, the white guys beat the black guys in a basketball game on a game winning dunk by Derek, followed by triumphant music, slow motion, cheering and everyone's happy. Life is good because the black people are gone! Not exactly consistent with the message of the film.

***1/2

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974)

Directed by: Joseph Sargent

Starring: Walter Matthau, Robert Shaw

I saw The Taking of Pelham One Two Three for not one, not two, but for three reasons. Actually it was only two reasons. One being the recent Tony Scott remake, which I've not seen, nor do I intend on seeing and the other reason being that it co-stars Robert Shaw, whom I love from his performances in both Jaws and in The Sting.

Well, Shaw wasn't his usual brilliant self but this film hardly called for superb acting. In fact, many of the performances were just mediocre at best and that didn't hurt the film at all. Both Shaw and Matthau held their own and carried the film well enough throughout but neither of the two were handed the task of making the movie good.

On that note, the movie lacks any real substance, motivation or intrigue. I suppose there are two kinds of heist films. One I particularly enjoy is Spike Lee's Inside Man and I use this example because of Clive Owen's line stating his motivation for robbing the bank. The back story of the banks owner creates the substance and how Owen plans to escape is the intrigue.

In Pelham, Robert Shaw hijacks a subway train. His motivation for this is the obvious one million dollar ransom he demands and the intrigue is how he plans to escape. What the film lacks is substance. We never learn anything about Shaw's character nor two of his three accomplices. We only learn about Mr. Green (Martin Balsam) who used to work for the subway and was fired for a crime he claims he was innocent of. Had there been more of this surrounding the other hijackers, we'd have substance, more motivation and more intrigue.

The good guys are the obvious good guys and the bad guys are the obvious bad guys. There's no inner conflict for the audience. And as many instances as there are where there is a lack of substance, motivation and intrigue, there are equal amounts of instances where one can see where that could be improved.

Lastly, while this is hardly a critique, I can't not mention the, for lack of a better term, intrigue in the hijackers aliases... those being, Mr. Brown, Mr. Grey, Mr. Green and Mr. Blue. Did Tarantino copy somebody!!!??

**

Dial M for Murder (1954)

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
Starring: Grace Kelly

The perfect plot to kill one's wife always seems to have a small flaw. Well, in Dial M for Murder, that flaw is that the wife survives to kill the killer. Wow, Tony Wendice (Ray Milland) didn't really think this one through.

In all seriousness though, Dial M for Murder does have one of the more intriguing 'plot to kill my wife' plans. Tony Wendice blackmails a man into killing his wife so that he'll have a reliable alibi. They arrange a tricky key exchange and the plan is set into motion.

All, of course goes wrong once his wife survives and a new story needs to be created. Everything seems to be all set until Tony and his wife's friend, the very convenient crime story writer figures out what could have happened! Oh no! The police inspector too, gets suspicious, one thing leads to another and that's a wrap!

It may sound as if I'm mocking such a story. Well, I'm certain I would be if it weren't for Hitchcock. Seeing this film made me realize that he can pull of some of the most outlandish stories and not only make them seem plausible but make them brilliant.

Hitchcock again creates a film that takes place almost entirely in one room. Suspense mounts throughout, even though we pretty much know how it will end and everything is just so intriguing that any flaw is overlooked.

Truly the master of suspense, Hitchcock continues to amaze me as I'm always hooked onto his movies, whether I like them or not, and while Dial M for Murder isn't amazing, it is very good.

***1/2

Office Space (1999)

Directed by: Mike Judge
Starring: Ron Livingston

It pretty much began in high school. That being the consistent urges by numerous sources to see Office Space. It almost became kind of a joke considering how many times the film was suggested to me compared to how long I went without actually seeing it. It remained in my netflix queue, inching ever so closely to getting delivered before something I really wanted to see bumped it right back down again. Well, I finally saw it and I can officially say that it sucked.

The more I think about it, the more it seems that when I was in high school people were urging me to see the film. Once I got older, people were more just surprised that I hadn't rather than continuing to urge. The obvious reason for this is that I should have seen Office Space when I was in high school, when that particular breed of comedy was not only more prevalent, but actually funny. Now, with the emergence of the Apatow style of comedy, Office Space not only seems dated, but insignificant.

As popular as the movie seemed to have been so many years ago, it doesn't have the same lasting power as comedies like Dumb and Dumber or even Happy Gilmore in my opinion. These are movies that were funny a decade ago and are still funny now. Part of the reason for this is those films are led by Jim Carey and Adam Sandler, both of whom continue to be funny. I'm a big Ron Livingston fan but the outrageous situation he creates and his supporting cast are supposed to be the funny parts and they are not.

While Office Space may still ring true to so many, "The Office" rings true to so many more. I can't say that Office Space sucks because of Apatow movies and The Office, I can only say those are the reason its no longer prevalent. It sucks because its not funny, the jokes don't register, the story is stupid and goes nowhere and the relationships are impassioned. Livingston's relationship with Aniston ends as quickly as it starts and starts back up again as quickly as it ends. There is no time to relish in it.

The film is apparently based on director Mike Judge's own experiences. I can't make myself laugh at something just because its based on experiences someone else once had and now looks back on and laughs. Realism is a good quality in a film, copying real life isn't.

*

Gladiator (2000)

Directed by: Ridley Scott
Starring: Russell Crowe

In trying to find a fault in a movie like Gladiator I caught myself recognizing more and more good qualities of the film.

I've had nothing but fond recollections of the movie's quality but in my recent attempts to form an opinion of Ridley Scott, I revisited the film and found that it was all I remembered and more.

I remembered first and foremost the amazing performances by both Russell Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix. With Phoenix being an actor I've never really cared for, I'm even more impressed with his performance as the emperor Commodus. While Crowe is brilliant and most likely deserving of the Oscar he received, I did feel, strange as it may seem, that he was out acted in a number of scenes. He does, without a doubt carry the film and I suggest this with no intention of discrediting such a performance but when Commodus and Maximus are face to face and a challenge is made to fight, Phoenix is brilliant, Crowe is good. Twice when Lucilla, played by Connie Neilsen in the most unrecognized performance of the film, confronts Maximus in prison, she is brilliant while Crowe is good.

The film does well in mixing a realistic, balanced and compelling storyline with the amazingly entertaining battle scenes. While I remember watching this film and fast forwarding to the battle scenes, I found myself anxious to follow the story more closely this time around.

The one major fault, if it even is a fault, is that the film looked too good. I found myself taken out of the era in which Scott was recreating because the look of the film was so crisp and clear. Its almost as if movies like Spartacus, Ben-Hur and Lawrence of Arabia benefited from the lack of technology. Because the films look older, I feel like they take place longer ago. Gladiator feels like a re-enactment a lot of the time, which is hard to get past.

Overall, its hard to find anything to dislike about Gladiator. The performances, the story, the set design is amazing. All in all, a great, great movie.

****

Blade Runner (1982)

Directed by: Ridley Scott

Starring: Harrison Ford

Since seeing Blade Runner I've somewhat forced myself into revisiting Ridley Scott. The reason for this being that I began to question a certainty that I once had. That certainty being that Ridley Scott was great. The more I explored this notion, the more I realized that my opinion of Scott has been based solely on Gladiator, which is a great film, and Black Hawk Down, which I've not seen in years.

Neither Gladiator nor Black Hawk Down, as acclaimed and recognized as they were when they were released, are considered Scott's best work. Alien and Blade Runner are true Ridley Scott films. Well, I like Alien, but don't love it and Blade Runner falls into the same category. And so many other Scott films, Kingdom of Heaven, Matchstick Men were disappointments. But then I look at Thelma and Louise and American Gangster, both of which I really liked... I just can't make up my mind.

So Blade Runner... Visually, its a stunning movie and the idea of it, I really like. Of course, movies about machines made to look like humans was very successful in the 80s. But unlike Terminator the story behind these machines isn't all that compelling. Granted Blade Runner is its own film, but I feel like I would have liked to learn more about the origin of these Replicants rather than simply reading a little blurb at the beginning of the film. I couldn't really get invested in Decker (Ford) as he chased after these apparently dangerous machines.

In addition, the whole aspect dealing with Decker's love interest who may or may not have been a replicant didn't have the suspense I think it needed to sustain my interest or really even care about it.

There is so much about this film that's easy to respect, but I found there is very little about it that is entertaining. Thus, Blade Runner falls into the "I'm not a Ridley Scott fan" category. I'll just have to keep track.

**

Venus (2006)

Directed by: Roger Michell

Starring: Peter O'Toole

Venus is not much more than a performance piece, aka, a character piece for Peter O'Toole who plays Morris. Morris is dying of typical old man dying syndrome and as he's dying, we explore his relationships with his closest friends and that with a younger woman named Jessie.

Not much happens but Morris is such a real character that he in and of himself is a story. While its not the most compelling of stories, it is compelling enough to wonder where his relationships will end up and what will happen to him in the end. He develops in such a way that despite his sleaziness towards Jessie and the apparent lack of any real ambition, we ultimately side with him throughout the film.

Peter O'Toole is either so brilliant in this film or so old. In other words, the subtleties of his performance are so real, its hard to imagine its acting at all. Jason Robards performance in Magnolia comes readily to mind while watching O'Toole. He's not exciting, he's not dramatic, he's not all that comedic, but he is very, very real.

Whether or not Venus is entertaining is almost hard to say. Its not entertaining in the traditional sense, it lacks compelling drama, there are no overwhelming conflicts, just the ironic accusation here and there, but there are relationships and ones that simply exist. For that to be entertaining, they need to be real... and that they are.

**1/2

Up (2009)

Directed by: Pete Docter, Bob Peterson

Starring: Ed Asner

Up doesn't quite rival last year's brilliant Wall-E by Pixar however, fortunately, despite the universal acclaim, my expectations weren't that high. What I expected was a great animated movie, nothing more, nothing less.

Pixar has earned every acclaim its gotten due to films as recent as Wall-E and dating all the way back to Toy Story. I look forward to this studio's releases as much as any great director's work.

Up was a perfect mix of humor, good and bad emotions and brilliant voice acting. As always, our main character is lovable and easy to root for. His conflicts becomes ours, his happiness and his sadness are shared with us.

If any live action movie could achieve this perfect formula as consistently as Pixar does, it would easily be considered one of the finest ever made.

This has been more of a review of Pixar than of Up but its because I feel like Up, rather than being just a great movie in and of itself, which it is, its a true testament of what Pixar has been so good at. Pixar makes great movies, thus Up is a great movie.

***1/2

Unforgiven (1992)

Directed by: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Clint Eastwood

I've both seen Unforgiven many years ago and since become a very big fan of Eastwood's films. That having been said, that all came with his more recent films and I had little to no recollection of Unforgiven.

All I did remember was that I enjoyed it... I did not, however, remember loving it. Upon further review, I absolutely loved... the end of this movie. It was the some of the brilliant, suspenseful and thrilling twenty minutes I've seen in recent memory. The majority of the film was very good at best.

Elsewhere in the film, the performances were great, the scenery... you're typical western, and the story compelling despite the fact that it was pretty much the same as so many other westerns.
-Will Munny has a haunted violent past that he must face when he needs money. He teams up with people with different agendas and ends in a climactic showdown.

What makes Unforgiven interesting and what separates it is the way it plays off this typical western. It recognizes that it has all the components of the genre and points them out. This was clearly the intention and it was done very well.

As much as I want to fall head over heels in love with this movie, I can't say that I did. I feel like I do have a fonder appreciation now than I did the first time I saw it so at the very least, I'm glad I saw it again.

***1/2

Terminator Salvation (2009)

Directed by: McG
Starring: Christian Bale

Just about everything in this film improved as it went on so it seems hard to suggest that I should have been a bit shorter. Regardless of how good or bad any particular scene or segment of this film was, just about every bit of it was exactly what I expected.

All that having been said, the best part of this movie was the simple fact that it didn't require anyone or anything to be great. I just needed to be. Even with the great Christian Bale attached to this project, there's little hope that a Terminator movie could rehash what is such a great achievement in the history of cinema so expectations remained low. Low expectations make it very easy to watch a movie and that is what this had going for it, if nothing else.

It was an action movie with a plot that, provided you understand the Terminator timeline, is simple enough. The special effects were good enough most of the time but I was never overwhelmed by them. Even when the acting was bad, nothing important enough was happening so that it would make a difference. When things were good, and even when they were bad, they were most often entertaining.

Lastly, Terminator Salvation did what every Terminator installment since Judgment Day has done... it made me appreciate how very, very great James Cameron's creations were.

**

Away We Go (2009)

Directed by: Sam Mendes
Starring: John Krazinski, Maya Rudolph

The easiest review of this film would be to simply say that its a funny movie. The more complicated review would require one to dissect every character and how they relate to our protagonists and how Burt (Krazinski) and Verona (Rudolph) stick together through thick and thin... boring...

Having now separated myself from my first thoughts on the movie... that being that it was good not great, I'm able to be more accurate in saying that it was not boring and not exciting. In fact it was very level planed. The mood of the film rarely altered and while Burt and Verona were relatively quirky and a likable way they seemed pretty simple in comparison to the outrageous supporting roles that ranged from hilarious to obnoxious.

The characters journey seems unprovoked and necessary at the same time. In other words, the opening suggested that the poverty stricken expecting couple had no choice but to find a more suitable environment to raise a family, while at the same time, I couldn't help but wonder how this expecting couple felt they could afford such a journey. As it turns out, the couple both work and have money even though no one would know it after watching the two discuss the boarded up window in their apartment as they attempt to keep warm by candle light.

I can't decide one way or another how I felt about this film. It has its ups and downs and I went with them. It was almost suitable. The characters go through ups and downs, as does the quality of the film, as does my opinion of it. I think that is probably the definition of average.

**1/2

Happy-Go-Lucky (2008)

Directed by: Mike Leigh
Starring: Sally Hawkins

Sally Hawkins certainly lives up to the title of the film and that much of the film is very refreshing. Her performance carries us throughout the majority of the film that doesn't really create much of a story and with that we are somewhat entertained and satisfied.

However, as the film runs about thirty minutes too long we go from learning about Poppy (Hawkins) to liking Poppy, to pretty much getting the point and basically wanting something significant to happen to Poppy and by the time that something does happen, we realize that there can only be ten to fifteen minutes left and we may ultimately be left unsatisfied.

As I mentioned, its very refreshing to see a genuinely happy person doing her best to make the best out of every situation. So often, there needs to be a catch, or so often when a character is 'happy-go-lucky' all the time, that character is the quirky outcast that drives us nuts. In this film, Hawkins is simply easy to watch. You want good things to happen to her so when they do its refreshing and if nothing else, it makes this a very easy movie to watch.

**1/2

Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (2008)

Directed by: Marina Zenovich

Is Roman Polanski a tragic figure or just a creep? Thus is the theme of Wanted and Desired. This is a fine documentary that is well crafted both structurally and thematically. It details Polanski's life from coming to America as a rising star in Hollywood to his exile. Part of what made this film so clever is the way it toyed with your emotions and feelings towards Polanski. We are first exposed to the allegations of Polanski and his relationship with a thirteen year old girl. He's charged with sodomy, providing drugs and alcohol to a minor among other charges that would make any honest person cringe and think nothing of Polanski other than someone who has taken advantage of his fame for his own perverted reasons.

We are then thrown into his very appropriate relationship with Sharon Tate and to make a long story short, she's murdered and Polanski falls apart. Hearing the testimonies of his friends, we learn how much Tate's murder destroyed Polanski, to quote the Shawshank Redemption, Polanski's behavior following his wife and unborn child's murder could at least be understood if not condoned.

This film truly portrays Polanski as a tragic, almost sympathetic figure... a brilliant man and a great filmmaker who has endured more than anyone should ever have to. Whether this portrayal is accurate is up to the viewer but from a film standpoint, it was done very well. It achieved that which any documentary intends to do, portray an opinion and/or shed a light on an interesting topic.

****