That's the Way it Crumbles... cookie-wise has a New Home

Please visit www.getyourfilmfix.com for movie reviews

A Serious Man (2009)

Directed by: Joel and Ethan Coen
Starring: Michael Stuhlbarg

**1/2

I can't in good conscience suggest that A Serious Man fails in any way because I know the work of Joel and Ethan Coen well enough to realize that everything (very likely) worked exactly how they intended. That having been said, A Serious Man doesn't top my list of great Coen films. I found it all too frustrating to watch most of the time and that isn't necessarily because Larry Gopnick (Michael Stuhlbarg) can't seem to have anything go right for him, but rather because the idiots that surround him just seem to make everything worse.

I think A Serious Man is about the ups and downs of life. This is why we're tossed right into the mix of Larry's life (opening fable excluded) and suffer through it with him until the end when we don't really get the closure for which we're looking. The Coen's aren't trying to suggest that life sucks, then we die but rather there are stretches of time within one's life when everything seems to be going wrong. Larry is the exaggerated example of this. The less exaggerated and more common example is the story told of Dr. Sussman, a dentist who's life gets complicated because someone has an engraving on the inside of his teeth. Dr. Sussman becomes so fixated on his mystery that it effects his life and a more dramatic way than should have been necessary. Larry does everything he can to prevent his life from continuing its downward spiral but it doesn't mattter.

It must be mentioned that Stuhlbarg is great in this film as Larry Gopnick. Its no surprise that the Coen's found the perfect actor to play a part in their film but Stuhlbarg portrayal of Gopnick I think should be in the same conversation as Goodman's Walter Sobchack, Macy's Jerry Lundegard and dare I say, Bridges' The Dude. Put these performances in a line, Stuhlbarg would likely come in last but its a perfect performance in a Coen movie.

If I'm being completely honest, I didn't really like A Serious Man. Just because I'm certain the Coen's accomplished everything they set out to do, doesn't mean it worked for me. I found myself often bored and even more often fed up with what Larry was going through. Had he just been having a rough patch in his life I think I may have sympathized with him but when he continuously looks for guidence from the least qualified to give guidence people in the world I kind of wonder if what he's dealing with is a direct result of the company he's kept. So many of these characters are not characters at all. Like the Minnesota residents in Fargo the supporting cast are mostly caricatures.... just Jewish instead of Midwestern.

As I touched on, Gopnick himself could be considered a caricature. He's an exaggerated version of and average Joe with the weight of the world on his shoulders. To make this work however, I needed to feel a little bit more compassion and sympathy for him. To keep my attention for the whole more, I kind wanted some light at the end of the tunnel for Gopnick. I chalk A Serious Man up as one of the Coen's setup films for their next masterpiece. I'm hoping Burn After Reading and A Serious Man are the Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers prior to No Country for Old Men.

Mulholland Dr. (2001)

Directed by: David Lynch
Starring: Naomi Watts

****1/2

It took careful attention, a google search for an explanation and then a second viewing for me to understand, appreciate and dare I say, love David Lynch's Mulholland Dr. All I can do is hang my head in embarrassment for my endless claims that the film is pretentious, confusing just to be confusing and could not possibly be as good as so many claim that it is. It had been several years since I first saw Mulholland Dr, after watching for a second time, it was about an hour before watching it a third.

First, what keeps Mulholland Dr. from being perfect, then what makes it great. Despite the fact that I understand the movie now and appreciate what Lynch did, anytime I need to research an explanation of a movie, it is going to hurt that movie's overall rating in my book. That having been said, had this film had a little bit more exposition, had it given its audience a little bit less credit, had it explained everything a little more than not at all, without of course giving up everything that makes it what it is, this could perhaps be one of the best movies ever made. Could that have been done I wonder? What this film is, is as much a mystery as the one the characters are trying to solve. The non-chronological timeline of events leaves you scratching your head but it also divulges information appropriately when necessary. Who these characters are is just as important as who they are not. What we see, is just as important as what we don't see. Without these very intentional techniques used by Lynch, the mood, the pacing and the quality of this movie would be effected. Call it a dream, call it a puzzle with missing pieces, call it pretenious if you really want to, but Lynch never made this movie for people who need to know exactly what's going on, just as Kubrick didn't make The Shining for that audience. Something doesn't have to make sense to be great I guess.

The first hour and forty or so minutes of this movie is film noir at its best. Even the subtle over-acting from Naomi Watts and Laura Herring were reminiscent of the dames from the 40s, 50s and 60s. The lighting was shadowy with deep contrasts. The music, which was used as perfectly as I've seen in a long time, said everything it was supposed to say. This hour and forty minutes is filmmaking perfected. Then, the other shoes falls. Suddenly everything seems backwards. For the next forty-five minutes of the film its difficult to appreciate the filmmaking because the story which I was following so closely and enjoying so thoroughly is a mess. Everytime I thought I might have an idea of what is going on, something else happens to prove my theory wrong. Having read an explanation, or a theory at the very least, I do believe that what I watched does makes sense, but its tricky and its distracting.

So to enjoy Mulholland Dr. all one needs to do is watch the first half of it. To really appreciate the movie for what it is, it might require some help and certainly needs repeated viewings. So as a whole, I'm on board. Mulholland Dr. is a great movie. Piece by piece, however, how does Mulholland Dr. work? Like any movie that needs to be watched a few times to really recognize how each aspect plays in, Lynch does well to tie things together but I wasn't sure if it was all necessary. And if it was necessary, I wasn't always sure if it worked with the movie as a whole. In other words, yes, there seemed to be a reason for everything but that didn't always mean that something needed to be in the movie. Even upon rewatching the film with a better idea of what was going on, I still questioned how certain scenes were important to the overall story.

It was once a mystery to me how a film so confusing could be considered so great. Now I'm simply fascinated by the mystery that is this film and the one that's within it. It was impossible to turn off from start to finish. Its a challenging movie, not in content but by the way it doesn't allow its audience to take a break. If you miss anything, you could miss out on one of the many aspects of this movie that really make it great.

The Thin Blue Line (1988)

Directed by: Errol Morris

****

Morris' visual style in The Thin Blue Line is unlike any conventional documentary approach. Although his interviews are shot straight on, head and shoulders, there is a way his camera has of framing his subjects so that we look at them very carefully, learning as much by what we see as by what we hear. The words of Roger Ebert describe this film better than I can try to do but my using his quote goes beyond my brain's laziness. The intensity brought forth through the interviews, and really, the only documentary aspect of this film, resonates after seeing it. There's nothing too frightening about these characters but reading Ebert's review just minutes after watching this film made me realize how much I kept trying to look harder at these people, wanting to learn more about what made them tick, wanting to hear more than what they were saying.

Some time ago, I watched a Charlie Rose interview with Charles Manson. Manson's crazy is evident and that creates an intensity that resonates even after watching the interview. Just hearing his views on the world make you think about your own and wonder how they can be so different (or the same, muahaha! - just kidding). The Thin Blue Line gives us interviews with characters who are much more like ourselves than Charles Manson, but the gravity of the situation about which they speak and who they are and why they do things really makes you want to look deep into their eyes and see their soul.

The Thin Blue Line is a documentary that's been starring back at me from my instant Netflix que for a while now. I've heard little bits about it and my always mistaking it for a prequal to Terrance Malik's war film always had me this close to giving it a watch. Finally sitting down to do so, brought with it, somewhat high expectations. Frustration lessened those expectations as there are aspects of this film, especially at the beginning that are kind of confusing. However, its really only getting a grasp on who's who. Once that's nailed down, its a relatively simple film to follow. Randall Adams is one of Morris' two primary subjects for interviews. Adams is the one that this film all but proves innocent of a crime for which he is serving a life sentence. David Harris is the man who probably committed the crime. He too is in prison, on death row for an unrelated murder.

The film teaters on the injustices of the Dallas court system during Adams trial but its more about people. Its about ordinary people mixed up in a real situation. Its not an extraordinary situation by most accounts... the idea that Morris we now know came within days of being executed before being exonerated after this film's release, is extraordinary but really we are fed a court case that convicted a man based on the facts that it had. Whether or not those facts were true or reliable remains to be seen. There are times when Morris suggests that the court system is corrupt and looking for a hard conviction for a cop killer. He points out that the District Attourney wanted a 28-year old man (Adams) so he could give him the death sentence rather than a 16-year old (Harris) who might get some juvenille detention time. Either way, this film stays away from biased opinions and really just feeds you the facts from every angle.

Interviews and photographs are mixed together with somewhat lazy but important reanactments of the murder. We see Dallas Police Officer Robert Woods approach the car and then five shots fired at him and we see this from every possible angle. Some of which give you a better idea of who is responsible, none of which convince you beyond a reasonable doubt. There are aspects of his filmmaking that appear as if a student was behind the camera and there are others that look a little bit too eighties to feel real but as a whole, the dramatizations were effective. However, for that effectiveness, I give more credit to Philip Glass' chilling score. I've yet to read anything about this film that leaves Glass unmentioned and I won't either. Documentaries so often inform, occasionally entertain, but seldom do they create a mood for themselves. Glass' music compliments the intensity of Morris' subject matter.

Perhaps Morris' film aided in the exoneration of an innocent man but I think it also gave an example of how a documentary can be done. No where does it say a documentary can't be creative. Well, I guess that's not true as the film was unable to contend for a best Documentary Oscar since it had fictional scenes. Either way, the creativity that Morris blends with the real drama that are these people's lives is compelling enough for at least one viewing... but possible a few.

Beer Wars (2009)

Directed by: Anat Baron

**1/2

I'm not really sure what Anat Baron was trying to say in her documentary Beer Wars. Maybe it was that big businesses hurt the American working man. Maybe its that the bigger the business the worse the product. I really don't know. This documentary lacked specifics and at times direction. However, what it did provide is some interesting information and even if some of that information was already kind of common knowledge, and even if some of it didn't seem relevant towards any type of cause or message, most of it was still interesting and that's what made Beer Wars an interesting documentary.

Anat Baron did her best Michael Moore impression while making this film and tried to star in it. Fortunately, there wasn't quite enough for her to do so she was never really in the way. The highlight of this informational video was the interviews she conducted with several independent brewery founders all over the country. These men and women, once upon a time, struggled to compete with Coors, Miller and Busch and while they still compete, I'm not sure they still struggle. I admit I know a little more about the beer industry than the average Joe but I'm far from an expert. The little that I do know however, allows me to suggest that this film would have been much more suitable for release maybe ten years ago. This isn't to suggest that big business doesn't continue to have a stranglehold on American consumers. It is to suggest that people know are fully aware that they get what they pay for.

Not every independent brewery is Sam Adams of Dogfish Head. These are probably the exceptions rather than the rule. Co-founder of Sam Adams and now CEO of the barely functioning New Century Brewing Company Rhonda Kallman experiences the everyday struggle of financing her business and getting her product to consumers. However, put one of her beers in front of someone and have that person choose between her Moonshot beer and a Bud Light... people may be inclined to try hers. Its no different than putting a good burger in front of someone next to a McDonald's cheese burger. If they have to pay $1 or $9, they might pick McDonald's but if they want a good burger, they'll take the other one. In short, people know they are drinking an inferior product when they choose Bud, Coors, and Miller but its an issue of cost.

Beer Wars is quick to point out that the craft brewing industry is on the rise in America. It can't and won't ever compete with the mass production by the major breweries but I'm not sure its trying to. If it were, it'd be easy enough to sell the rights to their product and slap an Anhauser-Busch label on the side of their six-packs. They are in the business of making good beer. They are more comparable to artists, than entrepanuers. They are the indie world of film, not Hollywood. This isn't to say that Sam Calagione wouldn't like it if people bought cases of Dogfish Head 90 Minute IPA for their Superbowl parties, but it's like more important to him if a few people enjoy what they are drinking when they spend $12 on a six-pack. It all comes back to, we get what we pay for and this is something that American consumers understand in this day and age better than anything.

Had this film been released in a time when people were still being duped by clidesdales into thinking that its classy to drink Budweiser, I think there would have been a better message here. Instead, its almost like there has been two seperate industries created. Yes, they compete in some sense, but they also have different markets. Like I said, this film has some interesting information but it fails to cross the treshold into complete documentary. Relaying a message that isn't there makes you seem biased. This film isn't biased as it has the opinions from several different sources, but I kept asking myself, what are they arguing about?

Cold Souls (2009)

Directed by: Sophie Barthes
Starring: Paul Giamatti

**1/2

In 2002 Charlie Kaufman penned a great screenplay adaptation of The Orchid Thief called Adaptation. In this screenplay, Charlie Kaufman wrote himself in as the main character. Two years later, Kaufman penned an even greater screenplay in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind in which some weird science allows one to have a part of their memory erased. What does all this have to do with Sophie Barthes' Cold Souls? Cold Souls does its part in combining the two, if only to setup what turns into a relatively uninteresting story more suitable for a Bond movie than a character study starring one of the best actors working today.

In Cold Souls, Paul Giamatti is himself, or a version of himself (who really knows?). He's stressed, anxious, nuerotic and struggling with his performance of Vanya. That is until he reads and article in the New Yorker and makes a visit to Dr. Flintstein played by David Strathairn (this films version of Dr. Mierzwiak played by Tom Wilkinson). Flinstein has developed a method to extract one's soul. Now his science isn't as specific as Mierzwiak's but it does seem to serve a purpose. Without one's soul, one can feel free, uninhibited and stress free. It takes an actor of Giamatti's caliber (the real Giamatti, not the one in the movie) to pull off the subtle differences of he with a soul and he without one. Giamatti does not disappoint as he's really yet to do. He understood the subtly for which the film was looking and he made much of the rest of the film worth watching.

The introduction to soul extraction is interesting as one would expect. If memory erasing is the backbone of one of the best films of the last decade then a version of that must at least be able to serve as the backbone of a decent one. Unfortunately, Flinstein's work has spawned something known as soul trafficking, practiced by the Russians. They use women who are implanted with other people's souls, then fly to Russia where those souls are again extracted and sold. There are aspects even of this part of the film that are interesting and well thought out but its so poorly executed that again, I felt like I was watching one of the bad Bond movies. I can only take so much unmotivated foreign intrigued.

I got the impression that first time writer, director (feature-wise) Sophie Barthes put too many eggs in one basket. Puns aside, she crafted an idea that souls could be extracted and people could live with another person's soul and executed that idea pretty effectively. It had to be at that point that she realized she perhaps had another short film and not the feature she had planned starring Paul Giamatti as Paul Giamatti. It takes more than a creative idea to make Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and writing a real life character into your movie does not make Adaptation.

Pi (1998)

Directed by: Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Sean Gullette

**1/2

There are three ways too look at Darren Aronofsky's Pi. By breaking my critique up this way it kind of makes it difficult to decide how much I liked the movie. There are aspects that I found interesting, others that I found somewhat confusing and thus not nearly as interesting and then finally an aspect that I simply found telling.

As a narrative, Pi tells the story of a man's search for a number and the obstacles he encounters along the way. Max Cohen (Sean Gullette) is such a brilliant mathmatician that he can multiply 753 and 291 correctly in seconds. He looks for numerical patterns everywhere but does so alone with the exception of the little time he spends with Sol Robinson (Mark Margolis) who suffered a stroke as a result of a similar search. When approached by Lenny Meyer (Ben Shenkman), Max is his usual off-putting self until Lenny introduces a numerical pattern in the Tora, a number consistent with Max's previous findings. Max is also harrassed by a mysterious woman, desperate to speak with him. Everyone's search for the number that controls the universe leads them to Max, who apparently has that number in his head. Its not Pi though, which is kind of confusing. Its a 216 digit number that doesn't begin with 3.14.

This idea that there is a number out there that can describe and connect all the patterns of the universe was interesting enough for me to think maybe I should like math more. Its not so far fetched either that it doesn't work. Even I recognize how often math plays a factor in what goes on, whether its simple or more complicated math than I care to understand. So this through line worked for me. Aided by the filmmaking style, I could have considered this movie great, but I believe it was held back by the aspect that dominated overall.

Ultimately, Pi is a character study and one that I didn't particularly understand. Gullette turned in a great performance and made Max's obsession and paranoia real but his actions didn't seem to make much sense to me. I understand the obsession that can come with a goal, especially one that may well be unattainable as Sol explains. Take any number and you'll find it anywhere if you want to. A similar idea was used in the Jim Carey piece of crap, The Number 23. This much I understand. What Max saw, what was real and what was imagined. Why he chose to drill a hole in his head were all aspects that I didn't grasp or embrace thus leaving me ultimately disappointed in so much of what was happening. The bulk of this movie is the study of a character. Said character's search for a number is only consequence of who he is. Had it been the other way around, had Max's search made him who he was, I may have felt differently about this film, if only because I may have understood it more.

Pi is the third of Aronofsky's four films that I've seen. When watching Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler, you'd be hard pressed to suggest that it was the same director based on the style of each film. Pi on the other had is simply prologue to Requiem. From a filmmaking standpoint, Aronofsky used many of the same techniques he used shooting and editing the two films. The quick pill-popping cuts I once thought were introduced in Requiem and made famous by film students was actually introduced in Pi and made famous in Requiem. I like Aronofsky's style in these two films because its obvious without being too self-aware. He keeps his style consistent with the pacing of his film. That's what film students fail to realize when mimicking such a style. Just because you shoot on a Bolex, doesn't mean quick cuts completely mask your over or under exposed shot. It needs to work within the context of the film. That's what Aronofsky does so well even when using a Bolex.

I'm certain I'll continue to check out Aronofsky's work in the future and I certainly plan to take a look at The Fountain if only for its controversial reviews. However, he's a filmmaker who's yet to make a film that I love. Requiem for a Dream is far and away his best movie as far as I'm concerned, but even that film I only reviewed as a 3 star film in an older post. I though aside from Mickey Rourke's performance, The Wrestler was a huge disappointment. While I'm clearly in a minority with my opinion of his films, I stand by the fact that I appreciate Aronofsky far more than I like his films.

The Maltese Falcon (1941)

Directed by: John Huston
Starring: Humphrey Bogart

***

It's been a long time since I first say John Huston's first film, The Maltese Falcon. I remembered very little about it which told me it wasn't nearly as memorable as some of the great films of the forties (i.e. Casablanca and Double Indemnity) even though it possesses so many of the great film noir traits... crime, love and suspense. There was a point during The Maltese Falcon where I'd had enough of the one thing that was keeping the mystery of the film alive and that is the lies that every character seemed to be consistently spitting out. A lying dame is an important aspect to film noir but eventually the story needs to have more substance to drive it forward than the mere fact that women are untrustworthy.

Humphrey Bogart (cool as always) plays Sam Spade, a private detective who's hired for a bogus job by Bridget O'Shaughnessy (Mary Astor). She, as you may have guessed, has much bigger interests than tracking down her (non-existent) sister. Spade's involvement leads him of course to the hunt for the Maltese Falcon, a treasured statue worth a wealth of money for he who not only has his hands on it but he who knows what it is. Even though we're prompted to wonder if Spade's motives alter throughout the film from just doing his job to having his own interest in getting the Falcon, we never doubt that Spade is the good guy and perhaps the only good guy involved.

The wild goose chase is led on by the compulsive lying of O'Shaughnessy. As I mentioned, it got to the point where I was tired of the only thing keeping crimes from being solved and artifacts uncovered was the lies. It seemed like the movie was lying to me about knowing where it was going and those lies were covered up by more lies from the characters. That aside, like all film noir, loose ends are tied up and the conclusions make a whole lot of interesting sense. So that slow portion of the film in the middle could be forgiven thanks to the fact that the film wasn't lying at all, and it knew where it was going, it may have just been buying a little time.

That which I can't forgive this film for is its half-hearted effort at a Double Indemnity style love affair. Old movies have a knack for creating such a love affair based solely on the looks of the characters and the all important aggressive kiss the man lays on the dame shortly into the film. In Billy Wilder's Double Indemnity, the relationship may have seemed unmotivated but that's only because (SPOILER ALERT) it wasn't real. In The Maltese Falcon, the character's continued their claims of love for each other even after they'd successfully (or unsuccessfully) finished their jobs. But simply, I didn't buy the relationship and even worse, considered it completely unnecessary. Spade insists that O'Shaughnessy only intends to buy his trust with money but when she asks what else does she have, he lays the kiss on her... that's what she has. But please, just because they made out a little didn't make me trust her, so why would Sam Spade, a trained and smart private detective.

The Maltese Falcon is disappointing in comparison to its acclaim but its a solid film noir. It has the necessary traits to keep its audience glued and while there's some serious longwindedness to it at times, its never so complicated that a ten minute explanation of it all was needed to make me say, oh I get it. If it was 1941 and I walked out of the theater after seeing this film, I'd without a doubt be looking forward to what this rookie director has to offer in years to come.

Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009)

Directed by: Lee Daniels
Starring: Gabourey Sidibe

***1/2

Even though the title is stupid, this is not a stupid movie. Its powerful, dynamic, intense, smartly made and a strange sort of entertaining. Any amount of realism that the story may obtain only increases these traits of the film. But do these traits make a great movie? They make a very good one, but I'm not sure that Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (I'll stop calling it that) is a great movie.

Gabourey Sidibe plays Precious who's life is so bad that the film loses all elements of surprise when introducing a new horror she's forced to face at such a young age. She's pregnant with her second child given to her by her own father and is forced to deal with the daily physical and emotional abuse by her mother (Monique in a well deserved award winning role). There isn't much else within the story. We escape the horrors of her life with Precious as she imagines herself a celebrity or the center of attention, a beautiful woman with a great life. These dreams hide us from the terrible things she's forced to endure and from a storytelling standpoint, they are a very effective way of creating a kind of suspense. To come right out and show us what happens to Precious would not only be hard to watch but additionally, it'd tell us everything. By allowing us to keep watching and not having to look away, we also are forced to let our imaginations describe what has happened to Precious... that can be much more tragic or, we can imagine her life the way Precious does and escape it all.

I appreciated the style Lee Daniels used in this film. He didn't go with filmmaking 101 even though he could have. He had a powerful enough story to carry itself but he added his own touch and gave it an original feeling both in the way its shot and the way the stories unfold. There's nothing spetacular but there's not a lot that is routine. His work isn't without flaws however and it mostly comes down the the story he's telling. I've read that certain people consider the film to be emotionally inconsistent and I understand and agree with that to a point. Often times, very dark and disturbing movies don't stop hammering its audience with one horrible thing after another but in those cases we are given characters who put them in the position to receive such punishment. Precious has done nothing to deserve all the problems she has and its admirable to see her deal with them the way she does and its powerful to see more and more problems mount for her but there is only so much an audience can take. Realism is a dangerous line to walk with films. You can be realistic without casting away your audience because they don't want to see anymore and Precious teaters on that line a bit too much.

Everything having been said, the film that Precious is comes down to the two main performances by Sidibe and Monique. Both are so good and so emotionally on que the whole movie that they create the drama, the suspence and the dynamic quality that this film possesses. Without great performances this movie would come across as not only weak but perhaps unsympathetic. It took Oscar quality work from these two (two unseasoned actresses) to give this movie the strength it needed to get away with the subject matter.

As good as these performances were and as much as they made the film what it was, its easy to give them credit. As I mentioned, I really respected the decisions that Daniels made even though I didn't always agree with or understand some of them. There was a lot about the story that went left alone and at times I wondered how I felt about it. A film so detailed and true to the drama of domestic abuse and social services, it seemed awfully easy for Precious to get sole custody of her children but that's a completely different story. The film picked and chose its battles and I think it chose wisely enough to compile a powerful and strange sort of entertaining film.

Food, Inc. (2008)

Directed by: Robert Kenner

I'm not sure if Food, Inc,'s primary objective is to scare its audience or to inform it. When its doing the latter, the film is effective and interesting. While, for me, I wasn't learned a lot of new information, it is information everyone should hear and understand fully. When the film attempts to scare us, its much less effective and across preachy and frustrating, more like the Best Documentary Oscar winner, The Cove, an incredibly overrated film that gave its audience no credit at all.

Food, Inc. lets us know what it is that we are eating, where its coming from and who's profiting but it also understands that a lot of times, we don't have a choice what we eat. Often times its a financial boundary that separates families from paying bills and eating healthy. Yes, McDonald's is a cheap lunch, but it could also be a ticket to an early grave. So we're introduced the mother who lost her three year old child to E Coli after eating a bad burger. Yes, its a sad story and a shame that this kind of thing is happening as a result of doing something that should be harmless, but when overdone (often in Documentaries) sob stories aren't heartbreaking or influential but rather obnoxious and overbearing. Learning how and why we can get sick from eating beef is much more informative and effective. Everyone knows cigarettes can give you lung cancer and kill you, but I don't want to watch a documentary with testimonies from everyone who's lost loved ones to cigarettes. I'd rather see who's really responsible and why corporations don't seem to care if they are killing people. Is money really that powerful?

I may sound unsympathetic but the death of a three year isn't really what Food, Inc. is about. It is about what we eat and where it comes from. Much of the story surrounds farmers, crop farmers, cow farmers, chicken farmers. I had much more sympathy for them in this film than the mother of a dead child. Let me finish... their entire livelihood relies on selling that which they grow, whether its dairy, beef, corn, chicken or anything. If it was as simple as growing it and selling it, whether or not they made money would be their own problem. However, the way they are controlled by the very few but extremely big and powerful food distribution corporations is disturbing. I'm always hesitant to completely jump on board with the apparent victims when documentaries don't include all sides of the stories but I can't blame this one for that as they point out that every one of these corporations refused to be interviewed. Interpret that however you'd like, but that speaks pretty loudly on its own.

When reviewing a documentary, its not so much what the film is about as it is how its made. I compared it briefly to The Cove. In my review of the Cove I pointed out that it gave no choices about how to feel about the situation. Yes, its very likely that what is going on with those dolphins is terrible but I'd like to decide that on my own. Food, Inc. (for the most part) informs, thus allowing me to continue making my own decisions. It outlines the consequences of those decisions but it doesn't tell me that I'd better eat healthy or else! It does its best to explore every side of the story that it can. It shows us the differences between the way organic foods are processed compared to everything else. Sometimes its as simple as the way the animals are treated when alive and sometimes its what they're injected with so they grow faster. Either way, I was presented with accurate information that made me think about the choices I make as I eat. Am I going to stop eating meat? No. Am I going to buy Organic foods? When I can afford it, yes. But even when I don't, I understand the risks and what I'm supporting.

Funny Games (2007)

Directed by: Michael Hanake

Starring: Naomi Watts, Tim Roth

***

I would like to thank Michael Hanake for making this film not because its so good that it wa a pleasure watching but rather because his original was so good that I wanted to see it again but the subject matter didn't necessarily support that desire. I credited 1997's Funny Games as a perfect film to study but unfortunately its not one I was eager to revisit. Thanks to Hanake's decision to do an English-speaking shot for shot remake, I was able to trick my psyche into thinking I wasn't abusing it by watching such a tense film for a second time.

This is the first shot by shot remake I've ever seen and as one would expect, its not much better or worse than its original. Logic suggests that it should be just as good or bad but there are a few differences that make this version a much weaker one. Here is the trick in trying to review this movie however... Funny Games (and I imagine either version) is a film held together by suspense. Its a less than traditional form of suspense as it relies on unorthodox techniques to highten that suspense. Seeing a film for a second time of course is like placing a bet you know you're going to win. There's no tightening of the gut or biting of the finger nails. In Hanake's American version of this film, I was essentially watching his original for a second time, only I didn't have to pay as much attention because, a) I knew what was going to happen and b) I didn't have to read subtitles.

It was never my intention to be entertained while watching this movie but rather to understand Hanake's intentions for making it and to further study a his concept and execution. Looking back now, if I were in Hanake's position, I would not have made this film. I saw very little point in doing it but on the other hand, I am not really a member of America's mass audience. Upon becoming interested in Hanake's work, I set out to watch his original version of Funny Games, not the version with familiar faces and no subtitles as I imagine a much larger audience (one which he was trying to reach) would be looking for. So if his reason for making this movie is justified then how did he fare in making it? Unfortunately, there is a lot about this version that doesn't work the as well as the original. This begins with the performances. There was nothing extrordinary about the performances in the original but here, the two leads, Naomi Watts and Tim Roth, two very capable actors, often seemed to be simply reading the words off the page. Even when displaying emmense emotion, their tears only masked the weaknesses in their performances, rather than aided in the quality of them. I party blame Hanake for this as it was consistent with the lack of patience he seemed to have or perhaps, the lack of patience he knew his American audience would have.

I've admired Hanake's patience as a filmmaker to this point but in Funny Games, he seriously gives his audience considerably less credit. He still has the same long shots as the original but more happens within them. He doesn't create the stillness of shock and horror that he did so effectively in '97. This lack of patience makes me wonder if he exhausted his actors with 25 takes in order to get the real emotion he needed on take 26. This is part of the reason I believe that Watts and Roth weren't at the top of their game. I think that's its possible they weren't give the opportunity to really invest in what was happening to them. The film just felt much more rushed than it should have been. The mood and the tone of the original was absent. Often times it felt like I was watching the original dubbed over in English but the translations were too direct or obvious so there was no pacing to the film as a whole.

Michael Pitt was the highlight of the film. If you close your eyes and listen to him, you'd think you were watching a Leo DiCaprio film (its weird). Open your eyes and you get a much creepier, very effective casting choice. Pitt rivals the performance of Arno Frisch as Paul, or Beevus or Jerry (whichever name he goes with a given moment). This leads to another aspect of the film that was disappointing and again suggests Hanake had no confidence in his audience. In the original, Peter and Paul terrorize a family while giving each other different names. They very rarely use each others names and the change in those names is so subtle that its hardly noticed. Its consistent with the subtlety of the rest of the movie. In this version, the changing of their names is so, so obvious that its frustrating. Paul introduces the family to Peter, the says, "Tom don't be rude, shake their hand". This quick and obvious change hurts the tension of the scene. It doesn't confuse the audience in the appropriate way.

Overall, Funny Games is a decent film but its a far cry from the original masterpiece (that's right, I called it a masterpiece). I don't know if has anything to do with the concept and story being Americanized but if there is no other reason, that will suffice as an excuse. I'm not sure I'm glad Hanake made this movie, but I am glad that I had some kind of an excuse to further study his concept.

Cache (2005)

Directed by: Michael Hanake
Starring: Daniel Auteuil, Juliette Binoche

***

The films of Michael Hanake that I've seen has swelled to two now after watching Cache (Hidden). After much praise for his original version of Funny Games, I'm disappointed to say I don't hold the same admiration for Cache, however, I appreciate it and like aspects of it for the same reasons I found Funny Games to be such a perfectly made movie.

The emptiness and subtely of Cache did work, and while I really loved the emptiness, it was the subtlety that was lost on me. The story surrounds the mystery of tapes being left on the doorstep of Georges and Anne Laurent's home. Some of the tapes appear to be surveillance of their home, others are more mysterious. The film explores the basic questions of who, what and why and to a certain extent, none of these questions are really answered in the detail we're set up to want. Yes, there is a possible who which brought with it an obvious why but something as simple as a person's denial is all that's necessary to keep the audience guessing well after the end credits scroll. For me, this left me disappointed. The lack of closure for all but one character (a character who's closure seemed extremely unmotivated to me) was hard to accept.

Cache does leave you thinking about the character's lives beyond what you learn in the film, something that worked and I loved about Funny Games. Flashbacks/dreams provide a bit of reference to the characters past but this was an aspect of the film that I found extremely weak and ineffective. Even though I was frustrated by the mystery of the story, I would have preferred even more mystery I think had it meant the flashbacks were left out of the film. They felt out of context and seperate from the ongoing emptiness that exsisted not only on screen but in my gut as I watched.

Having heard positive things about Cache and having loved Funny Games, I had very high hopes for this film and for future films of Michael Hanake such as Benny's Video and The White Ribbon. Cache did nothing but increase my respect for Hanake as a filmmaker. I appreciate that he has chosen to be a filmmaker rather than a storyteller of sorts. In other words, there's nothing Kurosawa or Eastwood-like in his films, there isn't always a what's going to happen next feeling to his films, especially here with Cache. There's very little happening but Hanake is patient enough to dupe his audience into thinking something is happening, kind of the way his character's are perhaps making something out of nothing. What if Georges and Anne never investigated the origin of these tapes?

I'm not sure Hanake makes movies for entertainment purposes and I also suspect that he doesn't expect his audience to do much revisiting. However, my reaction after Funny Games was that I wanted to start it over immediately just to study what he'd done. I didn't have that reaction to Cache and the overly subtle story that the film employs didn't having me longing to go back to it either so thus I was left with a film that I could appreciate but didn't necessarily enjoy or want to study. Without those two things, Cache ended up being another well made film, but not a whole lot more.

Hidden Fortress (1958)

Directed by: Akira Kurosawa

Starring: Tishiro Mifune

***

Consistent with the other Akira Kurosawa films I've seen, Hidden Fortress has a structured story, defined characters and unprescedented filmmaking. Unlike his other films, however, Hidden Fortress didn't really have me hooked from beginning to end. I did come to care about what happened the characters and I continue to marvel at the way Kurosawa makes filmmaking look so easy but I can't honestly say I was truly invested in this one.

A theme I'm beginning to notice, at least in the last three of his films I've seen is that Kurosawa likes to shift perspective, not necessarily in the Rashomon style, but his "main character" often changes throughout the film. In Hidden Fortress, we open with two bafoons, for lack of a better word, who on their way around the gaurded border of a territory in which they are trying to enter find a piece of gold, one piece of the 200 that are hidden in sticks surrounding a hidden fortress. The good guys and the bad guys in this film, while clearly distiguished, still ends up being slightly confusing only because it somewhat relies on the audiences familiarity with the region in which the film takes place, in addition to the clans, or the armies that patrol it. Fortunately, those details are less important than the greedy personalities of Tahei (Minoru Chiaki) and Matakishi (Kamatari Fujiwara) who when things are rough for them are the best of friends, but when a fortune of gold is before them, they'd fight to the death for a better share.

Tahei and Matakishi's incencent fighting over a few pieces of gold slows their journey enough to be caught and essentially then slave driven by Rokurota Makabe (Tishiro Mifune) who has other plans with for the gold. We, like Tahei and Matakishi, are led to believe that Makabe is just as greedy as they and not only does he intend to keep the 200 pieces of gold but he also has plans to capture and turn in one Princess Yuki for the 10 gold piece reward. On the contrary, Makabe is actually General Rokurota Makabe and is loyal to the Princess to the point where he sent his own sister to pose as a double of the princess. These intersecting stories and contrasting characters makes for an interesting journey through the mountains to safety. Ultimately, their goal is to transport the Princess, who disguises herself as a mute, and if possible, the gold.

Along the way, intense, humorous and engaging circumstances unfold, all of which are entertaining, none of which really seemed to move the story forward, something which Kurosawa normally does so well. It didn't take long before it just got old and boring everytime Tahei and Matakishi tried to escape with the gold. Everytime their plan was ill conceived and futile. Yes, as a result, the group was often presented with a new conflict and that at times was humorous, but the biggest problem still persisted. Makabe seemed less interested in the gold than he was in the Princess as he never seemed too stressed about losing any and he only kept Tahei and Matakishi around to move it... so why keep them around if they just kept causing trouble. Well, without them, there wouldn't be much of a movie and while its a movie made up more of individual scenes, it was still necessary for all these characters to interact.

Some of these scenes were spectacular. In a duel between Makabe and an enemy leader was shades of The Good, the Bad and The Ugly and Kill Bill. The patience Kurosawa has, knowing that he already has his audience hooked just by having the great Tishiro Mifune there and about to fight, is what makes the scene so compelling. The fight itself is nothing great, but Sergio Leone and Tarantino both ended their fights almost before they started in their films. Its the build up that makes it work, perhaps because we have seen much less of that than of fight sequences.

Another scene that really worked for me was the end. Unfortunately, after that scene, the movie ended again, then again. In other words, the movie dragged on a bit too long and reiterated aspects of all the characters that we already knew. I suppose the actual end of the film was somewhat necessary but without it, I don't think the movie would have suffered the way it did having the few scenes between when I thought it should have ended and when it did. Hidden Fortress is full. Kurosawa, like always, leaves no stone unturned and makes an elaborate movie with complex characters seem simple in the way he masterfully composes them. However, I can only love the filmmaker so much, I too have to love the film in order to give it emmense credit. Hidden Fortress is a good movie and a worthwhile watch, but its not Kurosawa's best.

High and Low (1963)

Directed by: Akira Kurosawa
Starring: Tishiro Mifune

****1/2

High and Low may have not added a term to the film industries lexicon but its abundantly clear what an influence it has had on so many films since 1963. Additionally, the similarities it has with films that weren't necessarily as a result of High and Low's influence simply shows how compelling and perfect the story is. In other words, Kingo Gondo (Tishiro Mifune) meets with his colleagues and refuses to make a deal with them and they leave disappointed. Shortly thereafter, Gondo receives a phone call revealing that his son has been kidnapped. A refusal to a deal, followed by a vengeful crime perhaps... I immediately thought of The Godfather.

Anytime a review opens with comparisons to The Godfather, I know I'm about to discuss a good one. Now of course, High and Low likely had no impact on Mario Puzo's story, but as I mentioned, its the structure and tension that makes both stories successful that I appreciated. As it turns out in High and Low, however, the kidnapper didn't kidnap Gondo's son at all, but, by mistake, kidnapped his friend. No matter to the kidnapper however as he still demands that Gondo pay the 30 million yen to keep his chauffer's son alive. This great twist to the normal police procedural really sets this film apart and creates a character struggle that is brilliantly portrayed by Mifune. He's an actor whom I've seen play a Samurai, and that's about it. Taking him out of that setting in making him a well-to-do business man with a family, a career and a lifetime of hard work to think about really showed me a range of abilities I wasn't expecting going into this film.

The opening hour of this movie is a masterfully suspenseful waiting game as Gondo, his wife, his aide, his chauffer (the kidnapped boy's father) and the police wait for instructions and Gondo wieghs the pros and cons of paying the ransom. From one master to another, the scene is very Hitchcockian in style and story. Not until the fifty-five minute mark of the film (with very few exceptions) do we leave the living room of Gondo's home. We, like Gondo, are completely at the mercy of the kidnapper and not until he makes his next move, can we make ours. The film is so compelling, all while staying put, I was almost disappointed when the film shifted gears and left the house. It never ceases to fascinate me how entertaining a film can be as it relies solely on dialogue. High and Low isn't a complicated story and its nothing I haven't seen before so what I was hearing wasn't so interesting that I couldn't get off the edge of my seat. Its the complexity of the characters, both those we've met and those we've only heard about that makes everything work so well.

The second half of this film all but abandons Gondo and focuses on the police investigation as they try to track down a kidnapper who thought of everything. There were aspects of this part of the film that I didn't immediately buy into and at one point began to thing it was losing its direction. However, Kurosawa structures the story so well that the story's direction is always motivated. I had a hard time accepting that as the police investigated, every crime was turning up... kidnapping, murder, drugs, theft... but that is really what made this (kind of) an episode of Law and Order. Before criticizing this film for being nothing more than an episode of a show that just takes stories from the news... imagine those stories being directed by Kurosawa. Its pretty awesome.

The influence this film must have had is clear throughout the entire two and half hours. Things as little as the police recognizing the sound of a train over a recorded phone call brought to mind The Fugitive. Movies like The Sting and The Usual Suspects, while very different in story, have a very similar mood as it relies on its characters to move the story forward. High and Low is a police procedural but it is almost moreso a character piece. The combination of the two is rarer than one might think, especially when done this well.

If I have a criticism of this movie it could be the end. Its an ending that I actually liked a lot and there is a big part of me that's glad it ended the way it did, however, because it wasn't what I expected, there was also a part of me that was disappointed. That's really all I can say without ruining anything. In fact I've avoided a lot about this film in this review because its truely a film that you can do nothing but enjoy while watching. The less you know about it the better, but its also a film that can be enjoyed over and over again. Its not perfect, but its that good.

2012 (2009)

Directed by: Roland Emmerich

Starring: John Cusack

*1/2

That's Santa Monica there in the picture getting destroyed. Oh, spoiler alert. Sorry.

I hope that its time for a break from the disaster movie because after watching Roland Emmerich's most recent of said genre, 2012, there isn't really much left to be done. I have a complicated relationship with Emmerich and his films because I do think that beneath his urge to destroy the world (on camera), there is a talented filmmaker. Granted I've not seen it in many years, but I've maintained that I'm a fan of Independence Day and The Patriot, while a major rip off of Braveheart, is a good, entertaining and structured film. Its films like The Day After Tomorrow, Godzilla and now 2012 that really make me question why sometimes Emmerich uses his technical skills to provide a backdrop to the characters and their relationships and other times, he just puts people in front of a blue screen and then plays on his computer.

2012 does come somewhat as advertised. It states that the Mayan calender pegs December 21, 2012 as the day the world will end. Sure enough, as that date rolls along, the world... well, it doesn't really end, it does get pretty torn up though but a lot people survive thanks to these massive tank boats the the governement had been secretly building for years in case something bad happened to the world.

Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) and his family are the focus for most of the film. Their struggle as a family, I think, is supposed to be what makes this more than just a disaster film. Instead it just ends up being them running from the end of the world that always happens to be right behind them. First they are driving away as the ground crumbles. Then in a private plane, the move down the runway just as the ground crumbles.... then, after landing and refueling, they race down the runway as the ground crumbles, BUT! aslo have to outrun the huge Yellowstone National Park eruption once they are in the air. I couldn't help but recognize that they were always fortunate to be moving in the right direction with the end of the world behind him. If I can take anything from this film, its that when the world ends, its going to end from west to east... so I know which way to run.

Elsewhere is the scientific aspect of the film, something of which Emmerich does seem to be a fan. Here we're led by Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) who, I guess, discovered that the Mayan's were right sometime in 2009 and aided in the preperation for the next three years. Aspects of this portion of the film were actually somewhat interesting. Its entertaining to some extent to see the world just demolished on screen but its somewhat frightening (whether its true or not) the information that explains why the world will end. It appears to be as simple as the planets aligning in a way that only happens every 165 billion years. If that deadline is approaching, it doesn't seem like driving a Prius is gonna do us much good.

The third aspect of the film is of course the choronicle of the worldwide impact of such a cataclismac event. Danny Glover plays the president. Its funny everytime I see a black president in a movie because I say to myself, "how come movies always have black presidents of the US, that'll never happen in real life...". Glover does everything you'd expect a president to do in a film like this, but fortunately, Emmerich is not Michael Bay and as Glover begins his speech broadcasted worldwide, power goes out and the broadcast is cut short. I appreciated that. I can see with my own eyes that the world is ending, I don't need it to stop ending for a few minutes so I can hear the president tell me that its ending. Its very plausible that the power would be out everywhere. It did, however, seem strange that after that, the president was still able to give his daughter (Thandie Newton) a ring on his cell phone and tell her he loves her.

Lastly and what turned out to be most important since so much of what I've discussed prior was essentially a failure in this film, is the special effects. Also, I must say, a failure. Okay, so Avatar did come out in 2009 as well... that had better special effects, but at the same time, with the experience, not just with special effects, but pretty much destroying the world in all his movies, I expected more from Emmerich. He does seem to have a solid vision of how to use special effects and he, most of the time, shows recognizable things being destroyed, which for some reason, is cool but overall, everything looked matted. I can't criticize most films too hard for bad FX but a film like 2012, that doesn't seem to pay much mind to any other aspect of the movie, really needs to put forth a better effort.

The stories in 2012 are extremely weak. The saving grace of mankind makes such little sense, I really do wish everyone just died and the biggest disappointment was that I didn't spend the two hours and forty minutes being entertained. 2012 is a pretty bad movie unfortunately but perhaps I let my expectations get too high as I'd heard that at least came as advertised and for that, it was good. Essentially, Emmerich destroyed the world for about an hour, the rest of the time, we were forced to sit through bad acting, horrible story lines, overly emotional speeches, inconsistent relationships and Woody Harrelson acting like a pedophile profit who knew what was going to happen, but you don't want to get to close to ask him because he really looked like he might take your child and run.

Amores Perros (2000)

Directed by: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu
Starring: Gael Garcia Bernal

****

Its very clear to me that Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu has no sense of humor whatsoever. His three films, afterall, are Amores Perros, 21 Grams and Babel. Watch these three films back to back and try then not to kill yourself... go! Amores Perros, like 21 Grams and Babel, chronicles intersecting storylines but it does it better, in a slightly less depressing (eh, maybe) and much more entertaining style. 21 Grams and Babel, I'd consider good films, Amores Perros, I'd call a great one.

Inarritu uses dramatic irony to its fullest. The intersecting stories allows him to drag out scenes all while his audience is fully aware of what's going to happen next, yet suspense persists. This is something I've of course attempted myself and the success of my attempt remains to be seen. The success of it in Amores Perros is really all that's necessary to tie together what are otherwise seperate stories. The knot that ties these stories together is a car accident, one on which we open after a car chase. Octavio (Gael Garcia Bernal) runs a red light and violently smashes into another car. This is the climax of his story but its only the beginning of Valerie's story and its just an event in the story of Chivo.

What I like so much about these stories is exactly what I like about one of my favorite films of all time, Magnolia. The stories are related but only loosely. They are their own stories and don't rely on the other from a filmmaking standpoint to survive. Yes, what unfolds in one story, in turn creates another but they are independent. I've always been a fan of this kind of structure, the kind of structure that put Crash into my top 25 of the year (ahead of Amores Perros perhaps only because I'd seen it more recently).

There is a potential flaw in a movie like this and that flaw is only highlighted if the movie is done well. The opening chapter of the film is the story of Octavio and Susanna. In short, Susanna is Octavio's sister in law (and object of affection). Octavio supports Susanna and her child with money he makes in a dogfighting ring (more on this later) because he husband, his brother is a piece of crap, to be blunt. The story is extremely compelling and the filmmaking is gritty and fast. The opening forty-five minutes of this film fly by and the characters become primary and I was fully invested. From there, we move onto the victim of the car crash, Valerie and her relationship with Daniel and their major conflict... finding her dog underneath the floorboards of her apartment.

Valerie's struggle is right up Inarritu's alley as its depressing but real. Her life changes drastically as a result of an accident over which she had no control and we're exposed to this slowly and painfully. Its great filmmaking, its not great entertainment, especially when its in comparison to the previous story. This is the danger in abandoning a story that is working. The inevitable comparison, even more inevitable than comparing similar films... its all within the same one. Lastly, is Chivo's story, the most complicated and least explained... and slowest. Again, great filmmaking makes up for the fact that the movie has slowed to a crawl. I don't expect or want a lot of exposition in a movie but the lack of such surrounding as complex a character as Chivo did lead to some frustration.

Amores perros translates to love is a bitch. There is an underlying theme throughout the entire movie that suggests just this. Everyone has complicated and internally painful relationships that they are dealing with and in that sense, love is a bitch. However, I can't help but assume that the focus on every character's dogs didn't influence the bitch portion of the title. Octavio fights his dog for money, not because he's as horrible a person as he'd need to be to do so but because his dog is good and keeps winning. Valerie seems to care more about her dog more than her man and Chivo just has a lot of dogs. The purpose of these dogs really is to push the story forward and nothing else, and as simple as that seems, its actually very effective. So often, we're exposed to bad relationships, violence or sex to create stories and conflicts. This just provides a unique look.

As for the dogfighting. I'll admit I've wondered why it hasn't shown up in more films and having now revisted this one, I can understand. Everything you hear about the brutality of the "sport" is true. Inarritu doesn't show very much of the fights... an initial attack followed only by emotions of the onlookers. The little that we do see, really does exemplify that brutality. Inarritu effectively shows us a world that really is sickening, just as he's effective in using that world as the starting point for all his intersecting stories.

I'd like to see Inarritu move on from this structure of storytelling as I marvel at his style of filmmaking. Each story he tells could have stood as a feature of its own and part of me, throughout, almost wishes they were and I had more to learn about all of these characters. The background is there, we see the present and speculate about their future... I wish I could have seen it all.

Rashomon (1950)

Directed by: Akira Kurosawa

Starring: Tashiro Mifune

***1/2

As I review Rashomon, its easy to compliment how well it used and essentially invented the multiple perspective style of storytelling. Without getting too complicated, a very structured story changes slightly with each testimony from those involved that the audience because the judge and the jury. We're not so much interested in what is going to happen next or what's vastly different or somewhat similar in the stories but rather which story is true. Its certainly no mistake that the testimonials are spoken to the camera, to us.

Rashomon has garnered quite the repuation for a film that, yes, at one time, was perhaps something people had never seen before but now is nothing more than basic filmmaking done well. The fact that Kurosawa follows the basics is what makes this film as good as it is. There's no need for anything drastic or overly original. It was more important that the style of storytelling was focused on rather than the style of filmmaking. It takes a talented filmmaker to make this distinction.

Its a very hard movie to review because its simple and well, there's nothing really wrong with it from a story or style aspect. If there is criticizm I have of the film its that in a way, it doesn't really stand the test of time. That doesn't even include the fact that its plot outline suggests that a henious crime is recounted when the crime is just a murder and a kiss. Of course, production code restrictions may have played a part in that but even so, a rape/murder nowadays wouldn't really be enough to make this story original. Again, I don't hold that aspect against the films lack of timelessness. Things like the music and settings come across as low budget more than anything else. It may be accurate that court was held in an outdoor garden way back when, but in this instance, it just looked like a cheap setting. Additionally, I was somewhat disappointed and confused by the conclusion of the film. Without giving it away, I'll just say it seemed out of place and a whole new plot point that didn't have really tie in with the rest of the movie.

I somewhat coincidentally but admittedly somewhat purposefully watched Rashomon on the tail of watching The Last Samurai. There are likely other Kurosawa films more suitable for comparison with The Last Samurai but just briefly, Zwick really could have taken a lesson for the simplicity of Rashomon. Note that I suggest Zwick did get bogged down too much with details in Samurai where Kurosawa just let his story unfold. That so-called cheap setting I referred to seemed to be less distracting than a character explaining how a Samurai getting a haircut is dishonorable... or something like that.

It may seem like I'm reaching for problems with this film and its because I am. The fact of the matter is, Kurosawa could have had his characters standing in front of a white wall making their confessions and it would have been just as successful. Perhaps his understanding of this is what makes him the so-called Master. I look forward to finding out if that is in fact who he is by revisiting some of his films and finally catching up with the many I haven't seen.

The Last Samurai (2003)

Directed by: Edward Zwick

Starring: Tom Cruise

***

I hear a lot of negative things said about the films of Edward Zwick. Almost as many negative things as I hear about Tom Cruise. I've seen enough of Zwick's movies to understand the criticisms towards him but in doing so, I also consider it to be somewhat unjust and hasty. Zwick's best effort is without argument 1989's Glory. More recently, he's given us Blood Diamond and The Last Samurai. The latter was one of my favorite films of 2003 and having now seen it recently, I can understand why it has remained that way until this point.

The simplest explanation is that with a 160 minute runtime, I've started this film without finishing it several times since buying it. By doing so, I've been continuously exposed to a great film with just a few easily overlooked flaws. The last hour or so however is like watching another movie. A movie that takes the underlying themes way too seriously and will stop at nothing to try and make you feel something. The first hour and forty minutes is a well-structured and motivated story about an American soldier captured by the last standing Samurai's in Japan. Captain Nathan Algren (Tom Cruise) grows to love and respect the Samurai and their ways, just as the Samurai, led by Katsumoto (Ken Watanabe), spared his life out of a respect for him.

The story is a rip off of Dances with Wolves, but so is the almighty Avatar, so that criticism is somewhat futile now. That aspect of the climax of this film isn't what hurts it. It was never in doubt that Algren would take up arms against his own people (which he doesn't really, he just fights with the Samurai against the more progressive Japanese soldiers whom he was once hired to train). From the point in the film when Algren tells his commanding officer Winchester Rep (William Atherton) that he'll train Japanese soldiers to fight for money but he'd gladly kill Rep for free is when we know that Algren will kill him at some point. Despite how cliche the line may be, it is effective in setting up the story. Rep is responsible for Algren's haunted past thus making him the antagonist of the film.

The Last Samurai isn't void of problems, even during its best moments. A poorly executed score can't ruin a good film but it can hurt it. I don't think the music is ever used effectively in this film. It never really seems to stop and its used consistently to say, "hey look at what you are seeing now, its it great?" or "...isn't it sad?". This ranges from intense action scenes and emotional breakdowns to simply looking at the vast Japan landscape, portrayed beautifully through the eye of Oscar winner John Toll's camera, (Oscar winner for Braveheart). In that first half of the movie, the poorly used music is masked by the quality of the film, but when it came time for the Samurai to fight, it was time to show how dedicated and honorable the Samurai are and Zwick felt like the best way to do this was to swell the music and spew unmotivated emotional jargen.

I mentioned the end of this movie was just begging me to feel something. Perhaps its watching Tom Cruise and a guy named Ken talk about the history of the Japanese Samurai and a culture Tom Cruise probably wouldn't understand any more than a real religion but depsite the fact that both Cruise and Watanabe are great in this movie, I just couldn't buy into what was going on. I don't want to call it an Americanization of another nations culture, but that's kind of what it seemed like.

I continue to stand by my opinion that Tom Cruise is a great actor. On top of that, he very rarely makes a bad movie. People find him annoying so that somehow translates to not considering him among some of the elite working today. Well, everyone thinks Sean Penn is annoying too but he's won two Oscars. As good as Cruise is, recognition and well deserved recognition for this film went to Ken Watanabe. This film was pretty much his introduction to the American audience and he's since become a familar face thanks to Christopher Nolan but The Last Samurai is by far his best work that I've seen. All that overly emotional and cultural speak that I referred to as over the top, doesn't hurt most of the film thanks to how good Watanabe is.

The Last Samurai isn't Zwick's best work but he does make entertaining epics if nothing else. There's a lot that's either unnecessary or poorly done in this movie but the fact remains that its a fun watch. Battle scenes are intense and everything between does what it has to in order to move the story forward without bogging you down too much with details. He keeps explanations short and too the point in order to get to the next scene that will thrill an audience. In short, I think he understands the films he's making and who he's making them for. I also think there's part of him that realizes he can do better and it shows when he suggests some extra details without really going into them.

Funny Games (1997)

Directed by: Michael Haneke
Starring: Susanne Lothar

*****

Where to begin? Michael Haneke said of his original version of Funny Games that if it is successful, audiences will have misunderstood the meaning behind it. I don't think there is a better way to describe what he did with this film. In my opinion, he was successful regardless of whether or not the film was or if audiences understood what he was doing. For those who do understand, its because this film was perfectly crafted into a great movie that, at least for entertainment purposes, I'm not eager to watch again.

I'm not a good enough writer to cover everything that so intelligently went into this movie. The word perfect gets thrown out nonchalantly and its bold to suggest that Funny Games might be a perfect movie. Its close. Not because I was so entertained throughout or because the acting or the story was so great. Entertainment value, acting and story in this film were all pretty standard. It was nothing we haven't seen before. The genius of this film, its perfection is derived from what else we see, or what we don't see and how we see it. This is far more than a movie in the narrative sense. While not an experiemental film, it is an experiment and an insight into an audience's psyche. Yes, two sadistic teenagers play deadly games with an innocent family, games they think are funny, but more importantly, the film is playing a funny, sadistic game with its audience and that is where it succeeds just as was its intention.

I watched an interview with Michael Haneke after finishing the movie and in doing so, I was able to make some sense of everything that was going on in my head. When I watch a movie like this, I spend more time pondering over the point of a particular shot or a line of dialogue than I do wondering what will happen next. Haneke himself says that this movie was never intended to be a horror movie and I completely understand that. Movies like The Last House on the Left or The Strangers fail because they rely solely on horrifying their audiences with shock value and suspense. Having not seen either, I can only speculate that the violence and gore play a big part in providing those shocks. Haneke turns that on its head, it takes that violence which we as a society are so accustomed to and shows us that the consequences of violence isn't necessarily violence with a vengence. More likely is sitting still, head down, in shock for ten long minutes before you can even bring yourself to accept what has happened. The chilling ten plus minute long shot where the aforementioned innocent family does just that is as effective a long take as I've ever seen.

Haneke uses longs takes often in this film. At times it seems like he's putting on a play, one location, one long shot, actions happening off screen (stage) only create suspense and speculation. The advantage of film of course is the close ups and the emotion. Haneke uses these close ups not only to show how terrifed (for some of his characters) or calm and composed (for others) his characters are but to create a clostraphobia. The inescapability that Anna, Georg and their son are faced with is expressed through the close ups not because fear is across their face but because we are stuck watching that fear. Haneke allows no escape for his audience. He forces is us to watch a facial expression react to the violence that is happening off screen. Its almost as if he wants us to want to see it. Finally, when we do see some violence it appears to be a outlet, a way out of his trap and we welcome the violent images on screen... but its taken away from us in a most unorthodox but I think brilliant fashion.

Haneke really made this movie to challenge audiences. I know this because he comes right out and says it in one of the few instances he breaks the forth wall and speaks to his audience saying, "You're on their side aren't you?" Well, of course we're on the side of the innocent family who has done nothing to deserve the torture betowed upon them. However, I found myself wanting to see less of said family and much more of these two charming but again, sadistic teens. What makes them tick? There isn't a whole lot of depth to these two characters but there doesn't really have to be. They have no background or past. They are archetypes. The came from seemingly nowhere, played their game and then disappeared, perhaps off to play the same game with someone else.

Haneke said that if Funny Games is successful, audiences will have misunderstood the meaning behind it. I like to think I understood the meaning because I found it to be one of the most successfully crafted films I've ever seen. Perhaps its as simple as a commentary on violence in film and in the media but I think it goes much deeper. The movie challenges what we as a society consider to be acceptable. It brings to mind how fragile the idea that the majority of us don't kill just because we can, that we repsect our fellow man just enough to let him live his life peacefully. Should we chose, there's not really any way to stop our society from falling victim to a string of funny games.

Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)

Directed by: James Foley

Starring: Jack Lemon, Al Pacino

**

For anyone who works in the real estate business or anyone who works on the level of commission as the characters of Glengarry Glen Ross, the film is probably a masterpiece in authenticity. For anyone else, its more of an overacted but well shot adaptation of something I believe should have stuck with the stage.

A film that really came to mind while watching Glengarry Glen Ross is Louis Malle's My Dinner with Andre. Both are films that rely so heavily on dialogue that if performances are spot on, a lot is left to be desired. Both films are based on plays and neither strays far from a single location in which the camera must remain consistent but never boring. Director James Foley does a very good job in managing his shots often with simple close ups or medium shots and never mroe complicated than a simple dolly back to highten suspense. The conflict that creates that suspense is simple. Four salesmen attempting to sell premier properties in Arizona. None of them however have very good prospective buyers and won't get any good ones until prove they can sell. There's also a Cadillac up for grabs and of course the one who fails, gets fired.

The premise here is much more engaging than what is made of it throughout the film. Yes, there are times when you are interested in who will get fired or what alternatives these characters will find in order to save their jobs but none of them really make you sit on the edge of your seat begging the intelligent dialogue to reveal answers. Its almost as if the movie is too intelligent for its own good. Like I said, I have no doubt that its authentic, but as I've said many times, authentic doesn't necessary make something entertaining (see The Wire).

So with a simple plot, smart dialogue and appropriate filmmaking, what makes this movie fail? Well, Al Pacino is in it so few will be surprised when I suggest that the performances are way over the top. I'm not one to criticize Pacino for overacting as even when he does it works. Not here. Here he just yells too much for no reason. His co-star Ed Harris, yells all the time. Those are the two glaring examples of overacting. Alec Baldwin is guilty of being way overly dramatic as I always accuse him of being in anything except a comedy. Alan Arkin isn't over- anything. He's kind of a ghost in this film and Kevin Spacey's character is just a jerk for no reason. He comes across very one dimensional and is only construde as the bad guy because there's no way someone with so little depth could be the good guy. That brings us to Jack Lemon. The one bright point of this film, at least when it comes to performances. I wasn't suprised to see that the lone Oscar nomination this film receieved was for Pacino but I was disappointed to see how overlooked Lemon was. He was excellent in every aspect of his role. He plays a sleezy salesman perfectly but he's human enough to understand his plight. If nothing else, his scenes were entertaining and authentic... something the rest of the film was missing.

Being based on a play, Glengarry Glen Ross relied on its dialogue and performances. Like My Dinner with Andre, that dialogue was too smart for its own good but unlike Dinner with Andre, the performances weren't consistent with the film. To put it in a much more simple context... the characters were just very angry all the time, no wonder they couldn't sell any properties.

Zombieland (2009)

Directed by: Ruben Fleischer

Starring: Jesse Eisenberg

***

Is it fair to bring up the inevitable comparison between Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead? Fair or not, it is inevitable but I'll try to keep it to a minimum because while they are similar in concept, they are two distinct films. I think why the recent trend of zombie movie spoofs and comedies work is because beneath the gore and shock horrors of your typical zombie film there are simply ugly, bleeding people walking around really slowly biting people who seem to have a hard time running away from the slowest moving creatures alive (or dead). These zombie movies are perhaps more ripe for parody than any other genre. It only a matter of time before the people who brought you Scary Movie and Date Movie and Superhero Movie and every other cheap spoof will bring you Zombie Movie. It will make more money that Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead combined and it will be horrible, except maybe for the scene with the hot naked zombie running around, that part will be good.

In Zombieland, like every zombie film, we're introduced to a desolate world that's been plagued by a virus leaving very few alive. Columbus as we know him (Jesse Eisenberg) is one of those few. I know what you're thinking. How did the non-athletic, nervous, virgin manage to live this long in a world full of flesh eating monsters? And yes, Eisenberg is a non-athletic, nervous virgin in this film too. Well in addition to those three traits, Columbus is also overly cautious. He has a list of thirty one rules that he follows religiously in order to ensure his survival, rules that pop up on screen to remind us of them each time he follows one appropriately, or on occasion, when he fails to and pays the consequences. Soon he meets his polar opposite, the gun-toting, fearless, twinkee craving Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) who's calling in life, or at least best skill is zombie killing. Against their better judgement, the two travel together, kill zombies that get in their way and share some humorous banter that highlights their differences.

It isn't really until two conning sister's, Witchita and Little Rock (Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin) steal their truck and guns that there's any real conflict. Very quickly, however, Columbus and Tallahassee find a better truck with more guns in it, so that's good, but then the girls steal that one too. Unfortunately, it appeared that director Ruben Fleischer took a page out of the Cormac McCarthy adaptation of The Road rather than sticking with its cousin picture Shaun of the Dead. One of my biggest critiques of The Road was the film relied solely on a desolate world and some canibles roaming around as its conflict. Zombieland has its protagonists roaming around a desolate world, trying to avoid being eaten. This is essentially what made up the majority of this movie.

However, Jesse Eisenberg wouldn't be the star of this film if there wasn't one more layer to this movie. It is what makes Zombieland better than a movie like The Road even if it doesn't quite reach the caliber of Shaun of the Dead. Columbus' one desire when it comes to girls is not so much to have sex with them, although I'm sure he wouldn't scoff at the idea, but to pull their hair back behind their ear. The film is very effective in making this desire familiar at least to this twenty-five year old. I think the sensuality of that brushing the hair back is real and in this instance more effective than Columbus just trying to get laid. My concern for Eisenberg's range presented themselves after seeing Adventureland but with that movie I just loved his character so much I didn't care. I acknowledged how much better an actor he is than Michael Cera and cursed his repuation as a poor man's Cera. In Zombieland, my concern mounted because for starters, the film nor the character are as good, but the character is the same. Like I mentioned, he's a non-athletic, nervous, overly cautious virgin. Fortunately, Eisenberg doesn't rely on his dry sense of humor to completely carry his characters the way Cera has begun doing. He's a very good actor, at least in the character he's continuing to play and if that's all I see of him until he's too old to play post-teenage angst, I think I'll continue to enjoy it.

Story and conflicts aside, the biggest difference I found between Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead was in how funny each one of them is. With the exception of just one scene, I didn't find Zombieland laugh out loud funny. There were some humorous moments and some clever lines of dialogue but I think ultimately, the characters were not very funny. I consider this a failure of the film because they were intended to be funny. Tallahassee's whole search for a twinkee really kind of fell flat for me and seemed like such a weak joke. I believe it was supposed to take what seemed like a weak joke and make it one of those funny because it shouldn't be type of jokes. Tallahassee being such a bad ass did on occasion generate a few laughs but part of the problem is that Woody Harrelson is just too hard to take seriously in this film. The twinkee thing didn't help but just in general, because this film does try to employ a certain level of dry humor, not being able to take a character seriously hurts that aspect. To top is all off, Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin, two actresses whom I've come to like, weren't funny at all. In fact, there weren't really much at all. They were just kind of there most of the time to give Columbus a girl to like and Tallahassee a girl to train in zombie killing.

Overall, Zombieland turned out to be very much as advertised. It was a fun movie that I never found boring, even if I didn't always find it funny or good. On occasion it did try to use the zombie's as a story crutch so it didn't have to delve to into anything too deep which is on some level appropriate when you're just making a fun summer romp but this movie had more potential than that and the proof is in Shaun of the Dead. I'm glad it wasn't an Americanized version of the same movie, but it proved that taking a real story and playing out with a zombie infested backdrop is effective. Trying to make a zombie movie with a secondary story isn't nearly as entertaining.

Death Sentence (2007)

Directed by: James Wan
Starring: Kevin Bacon

*

Uggghhhh.... It is without question much more difficult to review a poor movie than a good one. My excuse for seeing Death Sentence is as simple as a lack of options. Neflix were in the mail, no good games on and the director of the original Saw (a film I like and respect for its originality despite the crap it spawned) had another of his works showing on FX. I'm going to leave out the fact that I only watched about ten minutes and DVRed the rest to watch on a night when there would likely be an alternative... yeah, gonna leave that part out.

So the film stars Kevin Bacon as Nick Hume. He's a loving husband and father of two. He has the perfect life. Okay, enough of that. That's the film speaking not me. Before too long, Nick's oldest son Brendan, destined to become a great hockey player is senselessly murdered by a gang member at his initiation. While Nick's pumping gas and Brendan buying a slushy, the gang storms the gas station and blows away the attendant before the rookie cuts the Brendan's throat with a machete. But Nick gets a look at him as the rest of the gang drives off without him. Then he runs away and gets absolutely smashed by a car in the middle of the street... he's okay though. Just a few bruises.

This scene at the gas station, in addition to several of the action scenes are actually pretty decent scenes. The gritty and hand held style of film making that's used served them well. Unfortunately, everything in between is very stale. The efforts exerted into making some violent and raw action scenes did pay off for each scene in and of itself but the jarring mood swings we're exposed to anytime there's no real action is what makes this such a bad movie. Despite the overwhelming emotion displayed by the characters as music plays and the shot pulls away from the greiving family, the scene is emotionless. The films success in creating good scenes in turn became its failure in making a good movie. Its a bit of an oxymoron.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I'll point out that everything about this movie wasn't as bad as it came across. The concept, while somewhat cliche and overused, actually managed to make itself known enough to recognize. The contrast between Nick's life prior to his son's death and how it turns is interesting. The unnecessary garbage that leads him down this path of destruction for everyone involved is what hurts the journey. Shades of Taxi Driver exist only in action and dare I say style. Strangely enough, Nick Hume had more motivation to go on his murderous rampage than did Travis Bickle but it only proves how a concept is only one small step in making a good movie.

There are a lot of things that would need to be taken away from this film before anything could even be added to make it good but its biggest problem is how bogged down it is with cliches. Of Nick's two sons, the golden boy son is the one who's murdered, not the younger one who gets in trouble in school. This would have been fine if we didn't have to have the overly dramatic argument between father and younger son when son comes right out and says "the wrong son must have died!" One dimensional characters like Nick's wife Helen (Kelly Preston) only increase the liklihood of laughter at what should be gut-wrenching or heartwarming scenes. She fails in every frame she's in. Its not completely her fault, but she needs to shoulder some of the blame for such a bad performance.

Performance critiques lead us to the appearance of John Goodman in this film. I don't know what else to say. There is a partial reveal of his purpose towards the end but the film's begging to have a deeper meaning at this point overshadows any chance of rational thought or acceptance. What Goodman's character did do is enforce the fact that this film didn't have any balance or consistency. At no point was it walking a straight structural line. At times, I admired the direction it went as it took no regards of an audience's feelings and was, dare I say, hauntingly realistic. However, I've seen far better gang-related realism as recently as the best film of 2009, Sin Nombre and while similar heartlessness might exist with these characters, that's about where the similarities end. On top of that, it seemed the minute I began to respect this film for being clever, it snatched it all away from me by revealing that this ruthless gang is so incompetant that they failed to kill two of the three people they shot point blank. The scary part is not that they shot three people point blank but that they aren't supposed to be incompetant. Billy Darley (Garret Hedlund) the gang leader is such a bad ass in fact that he just walks around with his gun while people are getting shot all around him. He is, afterall, bulletproof until he's face to face with our protagonist. How could a film like this work otherwise?

The joke I've made of this review is the exact joke that this movie is. I laughed endlessly at the stupid lines of dialogue, the unmotivated situations presented to any and every character and the sad, failed attempt to make this film something more than it was... or wasn't. It didn't even manage to be something on the surface. It is however, one of those movies that I can not say whole heartedly that you should skip. If you're in for a violent rampage combined with some good laughs, this could be a movie to check out after a few drinks. I, unfortunately, hadn't had enough drinks.