Lost Reviews #5

Blazing Saddles (1974)
Mel Brooks

--I actually remember a lot of what happened in this film and having read this review over, I feel that its very accurate, with the exception of the fact that it only received an average star rating.--

There is a point in this film when a ridiculously funny movie becomes just plain ridiculous. It was a shame to see where this film ended up only because the story was good enough to support the humorous lines and comedic plot. Bart (Cleavon Little) is a black man sent in to be sheriff of a town only so all the townspeople will leave. The plan is unsuccessful when Bart uses his wits and the help of Jim, The Wako Kid (Gene Widler) to win over the townspeople and defeat the conspiring rich men. This is Monty Python type of humor, no one is afraid to say something to the camera and make jokes that are only funny on that ridiculous level. The film took that just one step too far and actually left the setting of the movie and had the conclusion of the film take place in Hollywood. A big mistake as far as I am concerned. It wasn’t funny, nor was is clever. It took a funny film and made it one that just isn’t as good as it could have been.
**1/2
05/31/05

Miracle at St. Anna (2008)

Directed by: Spike Lee

Starring: Laz Alonso

***

Miracle at St. Anna could very possibly be Spike Lee's best made movie, technically speaking. So many of Lee's films have a look and feel about them that screems "Spike Lee Joint!". This one didn't. What it did have the was the look and feel of a talented and experienced filmmaker's work.

The story opens with the shooting of man in a post office. Hector Negron, a decorated WWII veteran killed a man for some mysterious reason and upon further investigation, a valuable Italian sculture is found in his home. So what happened? We learn what happened as we flashback to the story of four buffalo soldiers and a young Italian boy during the war.

The battle scenes in this movie rivaled those from Saving Private Ryan. The realism was astouding, the performances felt real and action was intense. This aside, there are two key problems with this film, both of which did it a lot of harm. First and foremost is the fact that the majority of the movie played like a first draft. Lines of dialogue sounded rediculous and certain scenes ran too long. The performances in the movie were actually quite good in one sense and occasionally bad in another. Derek Luke, Michael Early, Omar Benson Miller and Laz Alonso played the characters of four soldiers trapped in an Italian village surrounded by Germans nearly perfectly. Strangely enough, they had a hard time delivering important lines. I've never really seen performances be so good and so bad at the same time. It seemed like they only had one take to get the line.

The other problem with this movie was its inability to have a message. Much of the movie explores the unfair treatment buffalo soldiers received from the country they were fighting for. Well, Spike Lee is such a racist that his agendas come across on screen and its very hard to get past. The more of his films I see, the more I enjoy what he has to offer but if only he could ignore the racial segregation that has and perhaps still does exist in this country at least while he's trying to make a movie, his movies would feel much more real. The film perhaps called for a beautiful German woman speaking over a loud speaker about how the black soldiers should fight for them because they care about them as opposed to America, but it didn't need to go on for twenty minutes. The first five minutes seemed like she was talking to the other characters. The rest seemed like she was trying to tell every white person in America what awful people we are.

Miracle at St. Anna is a two and a half hour recount of events in order to learn three things... Why Hector killed the man, where he got the Italian sculpture and who is the sleeping man. I'm pretty sure I figured out the answers to all of them. Each question is related in a pretty significant and interesting way however there is not a whole lot of certainty surrounding the explanations and there certainly isnt enough emotional impact to the explanations to warrant the final scene of the movie. While appropriate, it didn't quite feel real.

I would say that overall, Miracle at St. Anna got a bit of a bad rap. Its slow moving but doesn't drag. Its presents a lot of questions but answers them all and it has bad performances but they are good at the same time so to say its a bad movie might be a bit harsh. Saying its a good one is probably too generous but what the hell.

Step Brothers (2008)

Directed by: Adam McKay
Starring: Will Ferrell, John C. Reilly

**

Step Brothers shows us what would happen if petty childhood squabbles were had by adults. While some could make a convincing argument that this happens all the time in real life, this film takes it as literally as possible. Brennan and Dale (Ferrell and Reilly) both live at home, despite the fact that they are 40 years old. The reason for this is explained, albeit unconvincingly, however the explanation isn't important. Ferrell and Reilly are funny enough to shift your focus to the progression of the story rather than the origin. Unfortunately, this film's story has very little progression, it lacks direction and it left me disappointed on a number of levels.

By saying I was disappointed is in no way suggesting that I had high expectations for this film. I was not disappointed in the quality of the film in any comparative sense. It was disappointing, but it met my expectations. My problem was with the direction is chose to go in certain situations. After several jokes about how much Brennan and Dale hate each other and a near death match on the front lawn, the two step brothers eventually realize they have a lot in common and become friends. From there, they essentially live the same lives they did before, but they do it together. Their changed opinion of each other doesn't translate into any type of character arch. Essentially all it does it make things worse and they end up hating each other again. I kind of got the impression that it was universally believed that it was funnier to have them hate each other so scrap the story and bank on the jokes and physical humor.

Step Brothers had its moments and it was funny on a number of occasions, however as a whole, the movie got worse as it went along. The hour and forty-five minutes dragged and despite the funny moments, the film steered my expectations in one direction only to go back to the same old plot line of Brennan and Dale being bums.

This was the kind of movie that usually merits a "it is what it is" type of review. It's basically two funny actors, being funny for the entire movie. However, on so many occasions it attempted to step outside of what it is only to find it didn't belong. For example, Brennan's younger and much, much more successful brother is the stereotypical character that you are just waiting to get his but instead, he and Brennan reunite. There was no deep message being suggested... the movie didn't stray that far from itself... but in a movie like this, when a character has something coming, usually its best if he gets it in the most outlandish, physically painful and humorous way imaginable... or at least just get kicked in the balls.

Delving further into Ferrell and Reilly as Brennan and Dale would require a much longer review. They both work well as the characters and the script was clearly written with them in mind however something about either the characters themselves or the movie as a whole really hurt their ability to be as funny as they can be. It certainly wasn't a lack of improvisational freedom as I'm not sure if any of their lines were actually on the page but its almost as if they were directed to be more serious and to try to create deeper characters than were necessary. I don't know... maybe I'm trying to be too deep. This film almost was what it was. It was just a little more than that and it shouldn't have been.

Lost Reviews #4

Oldboy (2003)
Chan Wook-Park

--Here is a film that I remember fondly. Ironically, the only thing I really do remember about this film is that it was very disturbing so remembering it fondly suggests only that it must have worked.--

Oldboy made you ask "why?" Dae-su Oh (Min-sik Choi) was imprisoned for 15 years. Why? We don't know. Neither does he. Upon his release, he seeks revenge, that is until he realizes that he needs to first find out why he was imprisoned for all those years. Choi's performance is fantastic. He forces you to want to know why as well. You connect with his suffering, you understand why he wants revenge but even more so, understand why he needs to know why. When he finally finds out, the film becomes disturbing and at first seemed like a weak climax. Upon putting the pieces together, however, I realized that each detail was accounted for. Every subtle aspect was relevant to the answer of the question. This is what made it a good movie. For the majority of the film, I became frustrated with the lack of answers I was being given. Much seemed to be leading nowhere and I feared that the creators got themselves in too deep and wouldn't be able to find a smart way out of it. Fortunately, the end was great. The disturbing aspect of it was off-putting; however, it tied in so well that I don't think it hurt the movie. The movie is very violent and even on occasion, hard to watch. This is part of what allows the audience to really get involved. You can understand the characters pain and anguish. This is always a good quality in a movie and is, along with a smart story, what makes this movie a good one.
***1/2
04/24/05

The Evil Dead (1981)

Directed by: Sam Raimi
Starring: Bruce Campbell

*

The Evil Dead is the movie that every film student tries to make. Unfortunately, I think a film student did make this. No disrespect to Sam Raimi since even in the bad movies he's made, I've recognized a conscious ability. If nothing else, he knows how to put together a structured story. He's also somewhat of a master at the suspense element of horror films.

In The Evil Dead, a group of friends make their way through the deep south forest, drive over a dangerous bridge in an old car that's certainly going to have problems starting later on, and arrive at a spooky cabin that's hardly fit for living and definitely not suitable for a nightly getaway. Why people go to these settings is one of the biggest mysteries of the horror genre, perhaps second only to why they stay. The groups discovery of a book and tapes recounting evil events that happened in the past involving demons sets off the suspense that makes up the entire majority of this film not including the films climax.

What Raimi does well is building up suspense and revealing nothing. Its this that not only keeps you on the edge of your seat but makes you aware of the fact that eventually there is going to be a payoff... something will be revealed. With that in mind, even though you know whats coming, you eventually get to the point where you aren't sure when. Unfortunately, this lone positive quality of the film is overshadowed by the numerous negative qualities.

First and most obvious is the autrocious performances, the first of several student film elements that Raimi includes. To be more specific, there were two points when I considered quitting on this film, the first was when I didn't think I could listen to the characters talk to each other anymore, and the second is when I got sick of the gore (another student film element that I'll discuss). Bruce Campbell is Ash. He's not a hero or even the protagonist. For much of the film, he's really kind of a pussy who stands in the corner and watches his friends get killed by zombies. I'm convinced the only reason he lives the longest is because he stays out of the way. Its hard to stay invested in a character during battle when he's shown no signs of leadership or ambition towards solving the conflict at hand.

As the movie rolled on, there were points were I started to think that perhaps there was a method to the madness that I was watching. Simple foreshadowing came full circle on a couple of occasions. Both times it was unexpected which is a sign of foreshadowing done well, but again, this comes back to my commending Raimi for his story structure. Any hope I had for this film however came to a end when the what should have been five to ten minute climax turned out to be twenty five minutes of zombie blood spilling all over the screen. The ability to make blood look realistic doesn't necessarily mean it should be used in the abundance it was. Film students don't understand this... Raimi should have. When the amount of bloodshed starts to gross out someone with no issue with gore in films, it might be a sign that it was overdone.

The Evil Dead isn't a student film, its just made like one. All its missing is a pretentious ending and a bad film transfer. As I said in my review of Army of Darkness, however, there is a structured story but again... it can't save this one. Maybe I just don't like these types of movies, but at the same time, I'm really beginning to have trouble understanding the reasoning behind their followings.

Doubt (2008)

Directed by: John Patrick Shanley
Starring: Meryl Streep

**

The one thing that Doubt really has going for it is that "Doubt" which it instills in its audience. Its not just a doubt as to whether Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) engaged in an inappropriate relationship with the lone black student at the school but a doubt about everything and everyone involved. While this approach really gave merit to the title, it left me with doubts as to whether it was a very good movie.

My expectations for this film were that the performances and the story would be great. I was perhaps naive to think that the combination of the two is all it takes for the movie as a whole to work. The performances were great, so much to the point where its difficult to suggest one was better than another. The story too was very good. Its a mystery with no proof while at the same time, its a character piece about three seperate members of the school/church, all with different agendas and opinions on how children should be taught.

The tenured Sister Aloysius is set in her ways so much so that the young Sister James (Amy Adams) and Father Flynn's more friendly approach to education and discipline is not only frowned upon but not tolerated. Sister Aloysisus misinterprets Father Flynn's friendliness for something much more severe based only on Sister James' somewhat half-hearted suggestion. Perhaps, however, it was not at all a misinterpretation and so goes the story of doubt from every direction. This is what makes the film work.

What doesn't work is the doubt we have in the characters themselves, rather than their actions and this is perphaps the much more difficult aspect of a film to deal with. Its basic storytelling to create doubt as to whether someone is guilty or if someone's actions are based on sincere suspicions. Its much less basic and requires an important subtlety to pull off the doubt in the characters. The first thing you need is top level talent in the performances and that was no problem. Hoffman, Adams and Streep looked, felt and performed the parts perfectly and convincingly. However, the lone scene where Father Flynn appears likable is past the midway point, long after we've seen and heard too much to even allow that to make a difference. Sister James' doesn't seem to agree at all with the way Sister Aloysius runs her school but at the same time goes to her with a suspiscion that is based on practically nothing all while knowing full well what she plans to do. Lastly, Aloysius, for so much of the film seems like a bitch with an alterior motive but when we discover that perhaps she is right, that motive still seems to persist, even if it shouldn't. In short, I felt like the character development was either lacking or overdone. Either way, it hurt the film.

Another aspect of the film that bothered me is something I rarely touch on. The music in a film that has such a simple story and setting was big and voictrous... and distracting at points. There is nothing big about this movie outside of the performances and perhaps the accusations. The score suggests something else. Perhaps its saying that something big is coming and I can perhaps understand that idea, however, it worked more as a distraction than a foreshadowing tool .

Knowing that Doubt was originally written for the stage certainly didn't help as at times it was easy to recognize that Shanley was working on a much larger scale than he was used to. Little things such as child performances seemed to have just been skipped over. Granted, they are child performances but every line for the children seemed like it was the first take. Its interesting... Doubt is a small, simple story that without a doubt worked on the stage but dangerous results are in store for something that gets blown out of proportion.

Lost Review #3

Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
Ridley Scott

--This is the film that really made me question whether or not I was a fan of Ridley Scott. I recall going into this film with such high expectations that I can't believe I wasn't surprised when I was disappointed by a movie that I'm sure I had no idea what it was really about.--

The struggle in making an historical epic film within the past two years, or should I say, in the post-Lord of the Rings era, is not going well. It didn't go well for Oliver Stone, Wolfgang Peterson or Antoine Fuqua, but going into Kingdom of Heaven I only assumed that Ridley Scott wouldn't fail. I was wrong. Kingdom of Heaven is, as of this point, the most disappointing film of 2005. The story lacked structure and direction. The characters lacked depth and points of interest. The performances were relatively sub-par and ultimately, the battle scenes were no longer cool. Ridley Scott did make an effort however to make his epic battles original. He went with a similar approach as did Martin Scorsese in Gangs of New York's opening battle, with slow motion attacks and stress on characters emotions. Unfortunately, these characters emotions didn't help me as an audience member care about them or even understand what they were fighting for. The film takes place in the midst of the Crusades. My background knowledge of this era is slim, however there is very little guidance throughout the story to enlighten viewers such as myself. Balain (Orlando Bloom) is but a blacksmith until his father, Lord Godfrey, a famous and respected Crusader (Liam Neeson) rides in, knights him and gives him his oath to protect the helpless and so on and so forth, really a bunch of blather that was supposed to be inspirational. Upon becoming a knight, Balain is instantly a strategic genius. Somewhere and somehow, from when he was a blacksmith to when he became a knight some two days later, he knew everything about battle, not to mention, only hours after he decided to go along with his father and only minutes after he was taught how to fight correctly, he was one of the few who lived through an ambush. Balain's honor and respect for his opposition gained him respect within his realm of people. This honor and respect, however came out of no where. His character was, put simply, quite boring. He really showed no emotion towards anything and on top of that, Orlando Bloom can't act. Put less bluntly, Bloom doesn't fit the character, just as he doesn't fit any of the characters he ever plays. How he continues to get these roles is beyond my knowledge. Overall, Kingdom of Heaven had its entertaining parts but it was so disappointing and on occasion, boring that I can't help but say I didn't like it.
**
05/08/05

Lost Reivews #2

Dogma (1999)
Kevin Smith

--I've never claimed to be much of a Kevin Smith fan however that opinion is not at all based on my opinion of Dogma. While I can't remember if or why I liked it... something tells me that I did.--

Dogma makes a very clever and funny mockery of the Christian faith, mostly the Roman Catholic denomination. Theology is taken as literal as possible in order to make an entertaining story blend well with a random array of characters. Bethany Stone (Linda Fiorentino, in what is not one of her better performances)is raised Catholic who now questions her faith as she leads a very routine and mundane life at an abortion clinic. She is given the task to stop misguided angels, Loki and Bartelby (Matt Damon and Ben Affleck) from entering a church thus having their sins forgiven and all of existence abolished. Bethany is assisted by Jay and Silent Bob, Rufus (Chris Rock) and Serendipity (Salma Hayek). All of these characters have their own outlook and opinions of God and the Bible. Theology is jam packed into this movie in a very clever way, however, it is jam packed to the extent that it becomes repetitive and uninteresting and the humor of it all ends very quickly. Overall, this is a good movie, one of Kevin Smith's best. A smart story that is very well written makes up for the poor acting throughout by a majority of the cast.
***
06/01/05

Lost Reviews #1

I stumbled upon several one-paragraph or so reviews hidden within the documents on my computer. I wrote these reviews between the years 2004 and 2007 and was very interested to see how I felt about certain movies way back when I first saw them... precisely the point that I once had 25 pages worth of reviews before my stupid computer swallowed them, then died.

So I thought I'd post one review a day in addition to any new reviews I post. First up...

Closer (2004)
Mike Nichols

--Closer is a film for which I've been an anti-advocate. My only recollection of this movie was that I did not like it one bit. Either I was once upon a time, much more generous in my ratings or there's something I don't remember about it because even its two star review is surprising.--

Clive Owen, Jude Law, Julia Roberts and Natalie Portman turn in great performances in this silver screen soap opera. Those performances are perhaps the one upside of this film. They each play deceptive lovers who never change and never arouse emotion for the viewer. They are, put simply, unlikable characters. This, however, is precisely the point. We are not supposed to like these characters, however we begin not liking them and we end not liking them.

 The writing is very good in this film, however, the story is not. There are far too many aspects to suggest how deceptive these characters are. They go back and forth between lovers not one too many, but just way too many times. Its a simple conflict that we are forced to endure several times throughout the film. Natalie Portman's character has a different look all the time, not to mention her fake name, suggesting once again, that she is a liar. (As if we didn't already know that about her from the rest of the film) I hate to suggest that this film is an excuse for beautiful people to talk dirty to each other but it seems that 2/3s of the film is just that. While we never see any of the sex that goes on, we hear plenty about it.

 The relationships in this movie are so clearly love/hate. This could have been very easily taken in the right direction, which may have been that they all want the same thing but can't get it because of their lies, however it skews in so many other directions along the way that it is simply a mess.

 It is not a bad film, in other words, I was never tempted to walk out. It was entertaining enough to keep me there to the end, however when the end came I was not rewarded. There are no redeeming values, no character changes and no conflicts other than the one presented to us over and over again.

**
12/20/04

Wendy and Lucy (2008)

Directed by: Kelly Reichardt
Starring: Michelle Williams

**

Making a movie about a character's "friendship" with a pet isn't exactly an easy task. After all, you are essentially creating a one-sided relationship. Tom Hanks had a relationship with a Volleyball once but even Cast Away wasn't a great film, just a great performance. Well, Michelle Williams, for the most part, was very good as Wendy in this movie but again, the movie wasn't all that great. So that left me with one question. Why make a movie only to display a performance?

This is otherwise known as a character piece and of course the sole objective was not just to show off a performance. Wendy is on a road trip with her dog Lucy to Alaska where she expects to get a job. At the moment however, she's in Oregon, strapped for cash. She sleeps in her car until a parking lot security gaurd wakes her and tells her she needs to move her car... but her car won't start. Thank goodness this security guard is just a sweet old man with whom Wendy develops a friendship. This character, played well by Walter Dalton is about as cliched as they come. His job is to guard the parking lot everyday from 8am to 8pm so he's conveniently there every day to point Wendy in the direction for what she needs and he's old so he's had plenty of life experiences to share.

If things weren't bad enough, Wendy gets arrested for shoplifting... (she has $525 in cash which may be all she has, but all she was buying was dogfood... Just pay for it Wendy!) ... and by the time she posts bail, her dog Lucy is gone. I didn't really feel all that bad. Wendy wasn't at all unlikable, she seemed like a very average person just trying to get on with her life, but just because people like this may exist in the real world, does not necessarily mean they can carry a movie. So, while I don't wish any ill will upon her, I don't really care when Wendy loses her dog. Also, there's never the feeling that she won't get her back because trusty old security guard says he lost a dog once, but she came back two weeks later.

Williams is good in the film. Not great. Like her character, there's not enough about her to really carry the movie into a truly good character piece. In that sense, she played the character well. The movie is pretty simple and for that I give it credit. At no point did it try to take an unwarranted dramatic turn just to satisfy its audience. However, just because it didn't do that, doesn't mean something else couldn't be done to satisfy. And lastly, don't make movies about someone and their dog... even good ones are kind of pathetic.

500 Days of Summer (2009)

Directed by: Marc Webb
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt

****1/2

Movies are a lot like relationships. While never perfect, if they have the right combination of elements they can work perfectly. So often however, movies and relationships lack something that result in them failing in some way. If Summer (Zooey Deschanel) were writing this review, she'd be sure to find something wrong to prevent herself from loving it. Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) on the other hand, likely wouldn't even need to finish watching before falling in love with it. Well, I'm certainly not Summer, and as much as I want to be Tom, I can't say I quite reached that point.

I walked away from Marc Webb's 500 Days of Summer feeling both disappointed and excited. I was disappointed that the movie fell just short of being perhaps my favorite of the year and excited that it makes that conversation. In short, I really did love this movie. Joseph Gordon-Levitt (in the top performance of the year so far) is Tom, who writes greeting cards for a living. His passion is for architecture but like so many before him, life got in the way. When he falls for Summer, despite her insistence that they are just friends, Tom's ideals of fate and destiny are strengthened. His relationship with Summer creates the life that he believes he was meant to live. Summer's differing opinion is what causes that life to crumble all around him.

So much of this movie works and works perfectly. The opening narration tells us that it is a story of boy meets girl but its not a love story. This is true but at the same time, the ups and downs of the story stir up the same emotions that any relationship can. Summer is that Penny Lane, Fran Kubelik, impossible to ignore type of character that makes us want her and Tom to be together so much that its hard when we learn that "she doesn't want anything serious." Summer, afterall, doesn't believe in love. She didn't misinterpret "The Graduate" the way Tom did...

Deschanel's portrayal of Summer is spot on. Her character arch is so seemless and we, like Tom, are so close to her, we don't even notice. It's discouraging to not know what exactly happens to Summer during her arch. We find out after and its difficult to accept which has nothing to do with the nature of what's happened to her. We are as involved as Tom and not being a part of what happens to her is painful.

This movie has five-star review written all over for so much of it. The very few small misses are the only thing that kept it from acheiving that. Tom's younger sister was kind of a swing and miss. Her first appearence was ironic and humorous but she didn't work for the entire film. The split screen shot comparing Tom's expecations with his reality worked really well, but the reality of the scene fell far short of my expectations for its payoff. And not to give anything away, (not that I could) but the final scene of the film just didn't feel as real as the rest of the film. But that doesn't matter. The characters, their relationships and the story of this film are so real, I almost welcomed a little suspension of disbelief.

500 Days of Summer is about love, fate, friendship and life. All these elements combined themselves to make a movie that works almost perfectly. Whether or not they made a working relationship between Tom and Summer... well, you'll just have to see for yourself.

Army of Darkness (1992)

Directed by: Sam Raimi
Starring: Bruce Campbell

**

I really don't know where to start with this movie mostly because I'm not sure if I liked it or not. I really want to say I hated it because I don't want to fall into that cult that has deemed it a classic but at the same time fundamental aspects that make a good film are there. The film opens and immediately thrusts us and our clear-cut protagonist into a conflict. From there, he's challenged to overcome both inner and outer obstacles to get home. Along the way, he falls in love, he forms friendships and most importantly, he changes. Everything else this movie attempts however, falls pretty flat.

Ash (Campbell) gets transported through time and his only way back is to battle the living dead and retrieve a secret book. The idea of a 20th century man stuck in the middle ages creates an opportunity for humor and Army of Darkness gives it a go. Ash warns Shelia (Embeth Davidtz) that she shouldn't touch his car (transported back with him) because her primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and things with... molecular structures. I suppose that could be funny, but Campbell doesn't pull it off. He doesn't really pull off any of those lines.

What Campbell does have going for him is a hero complex. As he towers over the castle he's agreed to protect from the living dead, regardless of what he's saying, I felt like I could get behind him and fight. As soon as I saw how rediculous this fight turned out to be however, I'd pack up and leave.

I can't really fault the movie too much for being cheesy because most of it comes from the poor special effects. An army of skelatons wasn't really all that impressive looking in '92 and I don't really think it was Raimi's top priority. I commend him for thinking story first. Unfortunately, Army of Darkness defies the idea that a solid story trumps all because so much of this movie doesn't work, not much could save it.

Scarface (1932)

Directed by: Howard Hawks
Starring: Paul Muni

****1/2

My Howard Hawks mini-marathon was unintentional but has paid dividends now that I've watched Scarface. Say what you want about the origin of the gangster genre and what movies influenced it. Bonnie and Clyde may have shown the violence, but Scarface invented it. Scorsese may have added humor, but not before Hawks did and The Godfather may have been realistic but didn't hit home like Scarface. I'm not suggesting that Scarface is better or worse than anyone of those films. I'm simply relaying what an appreciation I had for it. Scarface is by far one of the most progressive films I've ever seen and it was way, way ahead of its time.

Paul Muni plays Tony Camonte who rises through the gangster ranks by killing, stealing and defying all the rules. He's arrogant but he's determined... a dangerous combination. I've been an advocate for Paul Muni since seeing Scarface for the first time many years ago, as well as seeing him in The Story of Louis Pasteur and in The Good Earth. He, in my opinion is easily the best actor of his generation and he plays Camonte with no less intensity than we've seen from the likes of Pacino, DeNiro or Pesci.

While one can find art in the blood splattered scenes that Tarantino gives us, Hawks works his way around the 1932 standards with such an artistic quality. Whether it is the beautifully shot opening scene in which there are no cuts or members of a North Side Chicago gang lining up to be killed seen only by silhoette, we are watching perfectly crafted scenes.

When it comes to realism, I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like it. Scarface is not a period piece. The movie is challenging the present 1932 during which it was made. The opening title cards were chilling even for someone who barely had grandparents alive then. The movie, while entertaining, has a sole purpose of making a statement to the nation. It tells them that they are responsible for the violence that threatens their lives and their children and that the government is their government and "What are YOU going to do about it.." When the police tell the newspaper editor he needs to stop printing violent stories on the front page, the editor goes off on a rant during which he practically speaks directly into the camera. He's telling the audience how it is, even if its not what they want to hear. Well, this isn't exactly a lesson in filmmaking, but I could only imagine how this movie chilled audiences at the time when it chilled me.

On the immediate surface, there's not much about Scarface that will blow you away, especially if you've seen Brian DePalma's remake which is much more in your face. But as a student of cinema, Scarface is revolutionary. Its a film that defined a genre and has influenced movies since. Its great.

The Big Sleep (1946)

Directed by: Howard Hawks
Starring: Humphrey Bogart

***

The Big Sleep is my second encounter with the private eye by the name of Phillip Marlowe. Robert Altman and Elliot Gould's 1973 take on the character left me very satisfied, even if that satisfaction didn't extend to the film itself. So having liked the character and for all the other obvious reasons, I went in for round two to see how Howard Hawks and Humphrey Bogart would fair.

In order to get the inevitable comparisons out of the way, I'll say that The Big Sleep was a far better movie than The Long Goodbye and leave it at that. Whether that means The Big Sleep was good, great or amazing remains unsaid. I'll leave that for later.

Having seen two films surrounding Phillip Marlowe now, I realize that the story's in which he appears are really only settings in which he exists. The real attraction is Marlowe. I missed this in the Long Goodbye I think because Gould was more of a characture with a few catch phrases casually following a few leads. Bogart is really made to play this character who is obviously created for film noir. Bogey is so cool, calm, collected and all together charming that what he says becomes gospel, what he does becomes justified and who he is, is just plain entertaining.

Like any mystery, The Big Sleep opens with a simple case which Marlowe is assigned to. This case, find a missing person. Of course the plot thickens and more characters reveal their secrets as Marlowe digs deeper into the case. Around every corner is Vivian Rutledge (Lauren Bacall) whose powers of seduction are second only to her powers of deception. The real mystery becomes how and why is she so involved in this case that started with a missing person and ends with one death after another.

If my synopsis seems vague, its only consistent with the telling of the story. I never really got a good explanation as to what was going on but as I said I really didn't need to. When Marlowe discovers something, Bogey's cool and determined face made me realize that he knew what to do next even if I didn't so everything was going to progress and eventually I'd understand.

And I did, as always in film noir, the case was summed up in the end. This person decieved this person to frame this person to get away with this... was pretty much the long and short of it. While I appreciate a movie not dropping its entire plot on top of me, I think Marlowe said it best... ''...she (the plot) tried to sit on my lap while I was standing up." And well, what happened? I missed it. But Bogey... he's so cool.

La Vie en Rose (2007)

Directed by: Olivier Dahan
Starring: Marion Cotillard

**1/2

La Vie en Rose is a biopic about the life and times of an apparently very famous singer name Edith Piaf. Like any biopic, this film has happiness and it has sadness. It has life and death. It has tragedy and love, successes and failures, uprises, downfalls, the overcoming of obstacles but mostly, it has a main character on which it relies fully as it leaves all other characters like dust in the wind. Like Jamie Foxx in Ray, like Joaquin Phoenix in Walk the Line, La Vie en Rose would be more aptly titled, the Marion Cotillard Show.

Unlike biopics such as Ray and Walk the Line however, La Vie en Rose surrounds a character who's life is much lesser known, at least perhaps in American and at the very least to me. So seeing her story was a bit more of an interesting side note to Cotillard's performance. It wasn't however, easy or entertaining.

At times, Edith Piaf is a real bitch. At other times, you couldn't possibly feel worse for her. Assuming accuracy, the film shows that Piaf had a very tough life. As a child, she panhandled for both of her parents. She lived with her grandmother in a brothel. She nearly went blind from Keratitis, however, as a child, she got her first opportunity to showcase her ability to sing. From there she went through the somewhat typical biopic up rise to success.

When I wasn't struggling to follow the timeline, I was recognizing that Piaf's life would have been much more sympathetic were it not for the chronological jumps throughout the film. There seemed to be no apparent consistency to the decision to go from Piaf as a child to Piaf in her early forties, back to being a child, to her late forties, to her twenties to her early forties again then back to being a child. All this really did was create confusion in the mind of an audience member. The end does reveal a half hearted twist that somewhat suggests a reason for the style of storytelling but neither the twist itself or that reason really win me over.

As for Cotillard... As one would expect, she is brilliant. I don't need to know anything about Piaf to know that Cotillard completely transformed herself to bring Piaf back to life. She was unquestionably deserving of her Oscar. When I finally reached a point of realization that I couldn't come up with any logical reason for the films chronology, I began to focus in on Cotillard and really appreciated the fact that not only was she brilliant but she was in all two hours and twenty minutes of this film. To sit back and marvel at that was not nearly as challenging as getting through the rest of the film.

Saying the film was challenging to get through is not to say that it wasn't good. That criticism is mostly based on the fact that the character, often times was not very likable. The film was too long as all biopics are and again, the timeline caused confusion. These elements aside however, Piaf's life is interesting enough to share. Whether I got a good impression of how her life went or if I just saw how she acted and behaved, remains unsolved.

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Price (2009)

Directed by: David Yates
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe

**1/2

I have the luxury of viewing and reviewing the Harry Potter films without the distraction of their loyalty (or lack there of) to the books. It gives me not only a certain freedom to create an independent opinion of the movie but also a freedom of enjoying the old tradition of not know what happens next.

The first two hours of the most recent epic installment of J.K. Rowling's story seemed to do a very good job of laying subtle and intriguing clues as to what will happen come the inevitably extraordinary climax of the film, however as the film progressed, I began to question whether or not these clues, while clinging to their intrigue, may have become too subtle and too infrequent. At one point, I passed this off as me looking too hard for something wrong with the film because for most of it, it played like one of those films that have an ebb and flow so smooth that you're engrossed to the point where you wonder if there is even anything wrong with it.

Of course the film is not perfect and that became more and more evident with each passing scene. Harry, Hermione and Ron have reached the age now where they've begun to have crushes on one another and other fellow classmates at the Hogwarts School of Magic. This is an important progression for the characters to make and for an audience, its entertaining, humorous and relateable. The simple joke of having characters behaving nervously and awkwardly around someone they like got good and consistent laughs throughout the film, (almost to the point where I think I laughed more often than I did during the Hangover, "2009's biggest comedy!") These jokes did reach the point of getting old however, yet still continued. This wouldn't have hurt the film enough to mention had that comedy not been an important element in setting up a pivotal turning point in the movie. By the time the movie got there, I wasn't really laughing at the repetitive jokes anymore.

When the film finally reached its climax it was over before it started. As the movie came to a close, I was still so hoping that all the subtle and intriguing clues I picked up on along the way were going to pay off much better. I, of course, recognize that the story of Harry Potter has yet to conclude and its very likely that director David Yates has brilliant plans for the final installment, however for him to be so meticulous with his setup and then give his audience no credit during the finale and completely shove what's happening right in our face was very unsatisfactory and disappointing.

Even without having read the books and knowing what is or isn't included in the film, I recognize how difficult it must be to craft a film that covers enough of the important aspects while still keeping it at a watchable length but I can't help but wonder if Yates spent too much time on the Harry Potter part of the title and not enough on the Half Blood Price part. We got a good look at the way Harry's social life is progressing, but that dark magic, the danger, the intrigue that makes Harry so special was somewhat absent throughout. It did, however, set me up for one thing... I want to know what will happen next.

Almost Famous (2000)

Directed by: Cameron Crowe
Starring: Patrick Fugit, Billy Crudup

*****

Almost Famous has always been one of my favorite movies but its also a movie that as time goes by I'm convinced is going to get worse with each viewing. This is mostly because of the fact that other Cameron Crowe films have fallen victim to just that but it also has something to do with the way the film is crafted... its cheesy.

All that having been said, this is still, one of my favorite movies of all time! Its a fantastic coming of age piece about a mid-level kid struggling with his own limitations in the harsh face of rock stars. William Miller (Fugit, while hardly turning in a good performance, works perfectly in the role and I can't imagine anyone else in it) follows and reports on the fictional band Stillwater on their tour across the country all on Rolling Stone Magazine's buck despite the fact that they've never met this journalist. Miller is a fifteen year old who until he was eleven, was under the impression that he was a year older thanks to his overbearing mother Elaine (Frances McDormand in a fantastic performance). His true passion for music sends him on this life-changing journey on which he meets people that shape his life.

The first ten-fifteen minutes of this movie is so obnoxious and contrived that I wanted to punch it in the face. I can't imagine reason good enough to warrant a mother convincing her son that he's a year older than he is. This is the same mother that forces her children to celebrate Christmas in September when it won't be commercialized. Did that already happen? Because Santa Claus is on the street in one of the first shots in the movie. These seem like little issues, but compiled into the first part of this movie, they really make for a confusing and pointless start. We would have been just as satisfied seeing William's sister leave home to the tune of Simon and Garfunkle because he mother won't let her listen to that music.

As soon as young William turns fifteen and Fugit enters the film, alongside Billy Crudup, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jason Lee and Kate Hudson in perhaps all of their career's best performances, this film transforms into perfection in so many ways. Nothing is unwarranted and even aspects that aren't necessarily believable in the real world work well. Every character is molded into someone you care about but at the same time feel frustrated with over the decisions they make. That is how involved I get in this film.

Yes, I've seen this movie many times before but upon this viewing, a first has occured. My review of Almost Famous becomes the first movie to sit pretty on this blog with a five-star rating.

Public Enemies (2009)

Directed by: Michael Mann
Starring: Johnny Depp

**1/2

I don't know whether or not to be disappointed with this movie. On the one hand, it was very much what I expected but on the other hand, I expect so much from Mann that anything short of great will always be a disappointment.

Every review I've read has been spot on about one thing, Public Enemies has some really brilliant scenes. The problem I had with the movie was that those scenes were about all they had to offer. Not to say that everything outside of these brilliant scenes was done poorly, I'm more suggesting that there wasn't much more period. The entire movie was much more of a collection of scenes than a story or John Dillinger or Melvin Pervis or the chase between the two.

While the fire fights between the Dillinger gang and the FBI were quite the spectacle, they weren't the same entertaining firefights we've seen in Mann films such as Heat and Miami Vice. The truely great scenes were the simple ones. The one's where Dillinger entered a bank and very calmly and casually robbed it in "one minute, forty seconds... flat". The were filmed so methodically, the music hightened at precisely the right times (something many other scenes can't take credit for) and we felt like we were watching the truest professional bank robber in American history. These were the scenes that made this film so great.

American history, in my opinion, may have been an aspect of this film that caused it harm. The four primary performances in this film were those of Depp, Christian Bale, Billy Crudup and Marion Cotillard. To begin with Depp as Dillinger, I'll say that this was perhaps the most perfect casting. What better actor could one choose to play a charming, handsome, talented American celebrity than Johnny Depp. That alone is what makes his performance work so well. I don't claim to know much about Dillinger's life and personality but I got the impression that Depp didn't waste time trying to be historically accurate in his performance, but to portray a celebrity. On the flipside of this, Bale and Crudup appeared to be mimicking the characters they were playing, rather than portraying an interpretation of them. Melvin Perivs is not a significant enough character in American history to demand an accurate portrayal. Take that away from Bale's performance and he would had more freedom to explore Pervis' struggles and frustrations while chasing Dillinger. The same applies for Crudup as J. Edgar Hoover. I don't think I would have missed it, had Hoover's historically accurate voice been absent... I did miss a quality performance from an actor I like very much. Lastly, Cotillard falls more on the Depp side of things. Unfortunately, she simply plays the character off the page too much and lacks any depth and realism, perhaps no fault of her own as she is good in the film.

I hate to leave this review negatively because this film had a lot of positives. I went back and forth on it throughout and this is really due to its lack of consistency. Its amazing to see two and a half hours worth of amazingly crafted scenes but that doesn't make a good movie, it makes a good clip show more or less. Because the scenes didn't tie together to make a compelling story, the film lacked that consistency, it lacked suspense and really any emotional involvement. The performances and the quality of scenes within however, make it a worthwhile watch.

**1/2

Pineapple Express (2008)

Directed by: David Gordon Green
Starring: Seth Rogan, James Franco

I really enjoyed watching a movie that had no intentions other than to be funny, while at the same time, not suck. Whether this was the intention of the film, I don't know, but Seth Rogan and James Franco simply made me laugh for two hours.

Rogan plays Dale, a process serving pot head who dates a high schooler, in other words, he's a loser who witnesses a murder and confides in his pot-dealer Saul (Franco). The murderers attempt to track down Dale and Saul and kill them and nearly do so thanks to their lone clue, a joint of the latest, greatest marijuana, Pineapple Express. This routine plot sends Dale and Saul on the run, something that would normally call for a lot of physical comedy and while there is a fair share of such, that's not the kind of comedy that makes this film so funny.

While seeing James Franco jump into a dumpster garned some laughs, what was truely funny is that he said he didn't want to get out just because he already got in. The delivery of one funny line after another created a banter between characters that was simply brilliant. And that banter is what made these characters, who are just losers with nothing to care about in the world but each other and their weed, so likeable.

The story is simple and it works. The jokes are simple and they work. There was no need for an over the top joke to reel us back into laughing mode because the entire movie just put two real characters into a real situation (not necessarily realistic, just real) and they made me laugh. There was nothing subtle about the comedy... a film is very aware of the fact that its funny when a character beats someone up with a dustbuster, but it didn't shove that awareness in our face. The impression I got was basically, laugh at this if you think its funny. Eventually, we'll have a joke you like. There were several that I liked.

***1/2

Last September (2008)

Directed by Chapin Hemmingway
Starring: Jeremy Fiske

Yes, I am writing a review for Last September. Considering the fact that everytime I get together with Chapin, this movie is one of the handful of things we discuss, there's very little that hasn't already been said, but I'll procede regardless.

Last September has its flaws, none of which are fatal flaws. It also has its strengths, none of which make this movie great. The most important thing, however, is that the strengths outweigh the flaws, and that they do.

The story surrounds Mitchell, a young man stricken with confusion over his relationships after the death of his mother. He has only three relationships now. I'm not suggesting that the film should have delved deeper into the people he's known all his life but because there are only three and because this story's conflicts are created through his relationships, they need to be finely tuned.

The first relationship we are exposed to is with his girlfriend Claire. All we get is an exchange of eye contact. It works. We see that the relationship exists and we move on, a perfect opening. Then we are introduced to Tim, Mitchell's estranged friend who has finally made it back to pay his respects. They exchange a hug and decide to go some place to talk. Their relationship is established. Next we meet Mitchell's Dad, who's understandably is distant, he has just lost his wife, but he's distant from Mitchell. Why? Now would be a time for them to connect, but they don't, in fact they never really do which leaves us wondering why a relationship is introduced and not explored.

Mitchell's relationship with his Dad is easily forgotton however as the more important of the three relationships are those with Claire and Tim. Those relationships are what really shape the story into what it is. What it really comes down to is that Mitchell and Tim were great friends until Claire got in the mix. Without giving anything away, I'll say that its clear where the tension between the two comes from. What isn't clear is what that tension took away.

There's no backstory. There's very little reminicing. There's really nothing to suggest that Mitchell and Tim were ever friends at all. Its this that really makes the story struggle. At some points, its easy to dismiss this mystery but at others, its impossible to keep from wondering why these two very different people have any interest in spending time together.

The reason this movie doesn't fail however is in large part due to the performances. Fiske plays the confused, tormented character so well that that becomes his excuse for spending time with Tim (Drew Fletcher). Fletcher does a such a great job of hiding his guilt by presenting superficials to Mitchell that we're convince he does it to help him forget his troubles... its the only thing Tim knows what to do.

Overall, Last September is a quality film. The story, performances and visuals are all very compelling and engaging and the flaws of the film are minor.

***

The Battle of Algiers (1966)

Directed by: Gillo Pontecorvo
Starring: Brahim Hadjadj

Its hard to have a true appreciation for a movie like The Battle of Algiers. Its a period piece about a conflict I know nothing about so right from the get go, I need to spend most of my time learning what exactly is going on. What made me enjoy this movie so much is that this was easy to do.

I recently saw a highly acclaimed film called Army of Shadows which was about exactly what the title suggests but it too me nearly two thirds of the movie to figure that out. In the Battle of Algiers, there are not very many subtleties. It worries less about being perfectly specific and accurate (accurate... for all I know it could be spot on, but either way, its not important) than it does about creating the conflict and bring the audience into it.

France's hold over Europe and surrounding regions during the mid 20th century isn't something I'm very familiar with but it is something well documented in films. What these films so often do is portray France as not necessarily the enemy, but as the instigator. No one ever seems to have a choice but to fight back, thus regardless of how little we know, we're given our clear cut protagonist. The Battle of Algiers begins this way, but as the films progresses, it toys with our emotions and our loyalties.

Failing to choose a side is a dangerous move for a film to make, especially a narrative. While its important to give an audience its due credit, and audience goes to be entertained, not necessarily torn apart. The Battle of Algiers does this well because of who the aggressors and the victims are. Innocent people are harmed but for the sake of a just cause. The Algerian people seem to have a rightful cause for their aggression, but all the French are doing is fighting back in order to prevent further deaths of innocent people. How does one choose a side in that argument? The film makes this work because of the way it shows the emotions of all the characters. No one is one dimensional thus everyone has a purpose that can be understood if not condoned.

Something I found particularly fascinating about the film, something I've never really experienced before was the action of this film engaging me to the point where I often ignored the subtitles. It wasn't that the action was "action packed"... I mean the action in the truest sense of film language. Everything that appeared on screen told the story. It was a fine example of showing us the story instead of telling it to us. Its exciting having that in a movie since foreign films often work in the opposite way... that is one needs to pay such close attention to the subtitles that they miss action.

I think The Battle of Algiers is a great example of how a complex story can be told very simply. I didn't have to spend a lot of time learning the complexities. I could spend time learning the characters and their motives and I believe its important to have deep complex characters as opposed to a deep, complex story... at least in the case of this film.

****