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.