Random Ruminations of a Cinephile

Movie Review: The Adjustment Bureau

2011-03-06T19:40:00.001-08:00

“The Adjustment Bureau” a wonderful tangle of fate and love

***½ /**** (3.5 stars out of 4)

“So now I'm goin' back again,

I got to get to her somehow […]

We always did feel the same,

We just saw it from a different point of view,

Tangled up in blue.”

- Bob Dylan, “Tangled Up in Blue”

“The Adjustment Bureau” is like one giant visual representation of Dylan’s song; that is, it is art done right.

We are treated with a wholly poignant film with just enough intellectual teasings. Instead of bogging us down with the details of just how the Bureau works, its members never take themselves too seriously for the most part.

Many have criticized this, insisting that given the film’s short running time, writer/director George Nolfi should have provided more explanation of the story’s sci-fi threads.

I think this is the beauty of the film, though.

We are treated to an easily digestible story dealing with the various implications of both sides of the free will issue. However, we are spared the pseudo-philosophy that bogs down films like “Dark City.”

It’s not that these issues aren’t interesting. But they can get in the way of our characters, which ultimately move the story along. “The Adjustment Bureau” thankfully does not fall victim to this.

Matt Damon stars as David Norris, a rising politician running for the United State Senate. When he loses an early lead, he meets a mysterious woman (Emily Blunt) while rehearsing his concession speech in the hotel bathroom. Their chemistry is immediate, and after sharing a kiss, David is inspired and delivers a very honest speech that is well-received.

One morning, an agent of the Bureau fails to make an “adjustment” on David. Rather than David spilling his coffee and being late for work, David gets a glimpse of the future the Bureau does not want him to have. He meets the mysterious woman again by chance. She introduces herself as Elise and gives David her phone number.

Thus begins the scramble of the Bureau to get things back on track. They tell David he must never see Elise again. When he ignores their requests, they start taking drastic measures to ensure that David and Elise remain apart.

Of course, as David struggles to be with her, Elise feels betrayed by David’s lack of stability in their relationship. One of the Bureau’s agents finally convinces David to move on from Elise, and eleven months later David is running for Senate and Elise is engaged to another.

David finally decides he cannot have a life without her. In the face of overwhelming odds, he decides to forsake the predetermined path and risk everything to be with her.

This sounds like the kind of high-stakes storytelling that produces very moving results but only if the leads are believable. Damon and Blunt hit a homerun with their performances. Nothing ever feels forced, which is important for whatever payoff we get in the end.

I applaud the film’s commitment to telling its story with the tone it does. Some may view it as over-the-top, but the film grounds itself in its emotional core. This is vital.

Even if the film avoided the criticisms of its sci-fi scenario, we would be faced with another serious charge: so what? Because the film places its characters and their story first, we know why it all matters.

“The Adjustment Bureau” is based on a short story by Philip K. Dick ("Total Recall," "Minority Report" and "Blade Runner"), yet it is a film that remains more hopeful than these others. Instead of getting caught up in the trappings of various philosophical conundrums, the film gets tangled in the most human aspect of the film: love. We can’t help but get ourselves tangled up as well.

Running Time: 99 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Critic’s Rating: 3.5 stars (***½)

Bottom Line: Despite grumblings over an underexplained plot, “The Adjustment Bureau” is a well-crafted and an extremely moving piece of art.

Let's Party Like It's 1988

2011-02-28T01:07:00.000-08:00

By now, the damage from the 83rd Academy Awards is too much to overcome. I can't even brag about calling Tom Hooper's upset of David Fincher for Best Director because of how poorly the rest of my predictions played out. Granted, I got tripped up by the 3 Horsemen of the Oscar Pool Apocalypse, the short film categories. I went 0-3 this year.

But in my post-show gloom, I decided to ramp up my usual comparative analysis of the present year's ceremony to a past year's ceremony. And boy do I have quite the comparison for this year...

Oddly enough, it's the year I was born: 1988.

(Side note: The 61st Academy Awards saw the introduction of the classic phrase "And the Oscar goes to...")

The King's Speech and Inception both tallied 4 wins this year. In 1988, Rain Man and Who Framed Roger Rabbit both garnered 4 wins.

The King's Speech and Rain Man won the same 4 categories! Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Original Screenplay.

Inception and Who Framed Roger Rabbit triumphed in the technical awards (both won awards for sound and visual effects).

Inception and Who Framed Roger Rabbit were the commercial favorites, capturing the adoration of national audiences. (Of course, Rain Man and The King's Speech also eclipsed the $100 million mark at the domestic box office.) Both films are gamechangers in story-telling. The King's Speech and Rain Man were fairly straightforward movies.

Hoffman's character in Rain Man suffers from a restrictive/repetitive behavioral impediment. Colin Firth's character in The King's Speech is no different.

The Social Network and Dangerous Liaisons both won 3 Oscars. Both were nominated for Best Picture, and both won the Best Adapted Screenplay award. Both are tales of sexual seduction; one is set in Pre-Revolution France and the other set around Facebook. Click this now.

Natalie Portman just won her first Best Actress Oscar at the age of 29. Her breakthrough role was at the age of 13, playing a 12 year-old girl with an uncomfortably awkward relationship with a much older man. (Roger Ebert questioned the film's "would-be sexy portrayal of a pre-teenage girl.")

Jodie Foster won her first Best Actress Oscar at the age of 26. Her breakthrough role was at the age of 13, playing a 12 year-old girl with an uncomfortably awkward relationship with much older men. (She played a child prostitute.)

Their Oscar-winning roles involved controversial sexual topics.

Christian Bale and Kevin Kline won Best Supporting Actor Oscars. Both were both middle-aged (36 for Bale and 41 for Kline) and in the middle of very successful acting careers at the time of their wins. Unlike Bale's triumph, Kline's victory was considered an upset.

Hans Zimmer was nominated in both years, for Rain Man and Inception. He lost both times.

A Tim Burton film won the Academy Award for Best Makeup: Beetlejuice (1988) and Alice in Wonderland (2010).

Finally, the 1988 and 2010 winners of Best Foreign Language Film came from Denmark (Pelle the Conqueror and In a Better World).

And you probably thought I was reading too much into all of this...

Movie Review: Morning Glory

2010-11-14T20:04:00.001-08:00

“Morning Glory” is a delight

***/**** (3 stars out of 4)

“Morning Glory” is about as charming as they come.

Like most good comedies, the humor arises out of the characters and their action. However, that is not enough to explain why this movie succeeds; there is something to the parts that make the whole work.

When hard-working TV producer Becky Fuller (Rachel McAdams) is fired from a local news program, her career begins to look as bleak as her hapless love life. Stumbling into a job at "Daybreak" (the last-place national morning news show), Becky decides to revitalize the show by bringing on legendary TV anchor Mike Pomeroy (Harrison Ford).

Unfortunately, Pomeroy refuses to cover morning show staples like celebrity gossip, weather, fashion and crafts, let alone work with his new co-host, Colleen Peck (Diane Keaton), a former beauty queen and longtime morning show personality, who is more than happy covering morning "news."

As Mike and Colleen clash, first behind the scenes and then on the air, Becky's blossoming love affair with fellow producer, Adam Bennett (Patrick Wilson) begins to unravel. And soon Becky is struggling to save her relationship, her reputation, her job and ultimately, the show itself.

This struggle to keep everything together is the driving force behind the comedy. It makes the humor come alive because it shows us that the characters are grounded in something real. I do not think that this movie would work if, at any point, these characters seemed to be larger than life. If good comedy is to arise from characters, the audience needs to buy in completely.

Rachel McAdams gives a good performance here. She brings it every scene, which is very important for giving the film a consistent emotional barometer. It is also important because she has to go toe-to-toe with Diane Keaton and Harrison Ford.

Harrison Ford is the one anomaly in this movie, though not necessarily in a bad way. I would not say Harrison Ford has an acting range, but there is an expectation that most of us have when we watch him. But this is a different kind of Harrison Ford in “Morning Glory,” one that I am not so sure if I have seen before. (His impersonation of Christian Bale/Batman from “The Dark Knight,” however unintentional it may be, is spot-on.)

McAdams and Ford are at their best in the film’s second half, and not surprisingly, this is where the film really takes off.

It is not just the back-and-forth between McAdams and Ford that helps catapults the film. The other actors, including Matt Malloy as the resident weatherman, all come alive. This is because the script tightens after the first act.

Early on, the movie was very uneven. It was not immediately clear just what type of movie I’d be seeing. The tone was very somber early on, but maybe this was an attempt to up the stakes, so that the later payoff would leave the audience more than satisfied. I will have to say that if this was the case, then it worked perfectly.

This movie is not perfect. I was really excited to see this movie, and the first act was confounding in its unevenness. But the remainder of the movie is wonderful. (In particular, one roller coaster scene sent the audience into some of the loudest laughter I’ve ever heard at the movies.)

Look past Paramount’s attempt to bill it as a romantic comedy, and you will see the film as it really is: a film that is both good comedy and good drama. Thankfully, the characters give rise to both; this is what makes “Morning Glory” one of the better films of the year.

Running Time: 102 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Bottom Line: Although not perfect, the story flows from its characters; as a result, we get one of the most charming films of the year.

Movie Review: Hereafter

2010-10-24T19:38:00.000-07:00

“Hereafter” the latest triumph for Eastwood

3 ½ stars out of 4

Clint Eastwood the director has nothing to prove to audiences anymore. Even when his latest film is in unfamiliar territory for both him and his audience, I never once felt the insecurity that would most likely accompany the same material in the hands of less experienced directors.

“Hereafter” is being described as Eastwood’s “French film,” but I am not so quick to deem it as such. Instead, this may be best described as Eastwood’s most “adult” film, if only because of its laconic style. This characteristic combined with the subject matter further reinforces this claim.

To be clear, this film requires the patience of our attention-deficient culture. Some may argue that this is a weakness that ultimately brings down the film, despite its visual strengths and the wonderful acting. To those people I charge the following: you are missing the point.

This film consists of three tightly woven narratives. One involves George (Matt Damon), a man who appears to be an actual psychic, although he has given up this practice. Despite this “retirement,” he is constantly called upon by both strangers and those close to him to do readings. Throughout the film, George maintains that this connection with the dead is a curse, and it is not too hard to see why: it impacts his ability to foster new relationships.

The other two threads involve French television journalist Marie and a young English boy named Marcus. Marie, while abroad, becomes a victim of a destructive tsunami. She appears to be slipping into death, only to be resuscitated. This near-death experience, which Eastwood leaves ambiguous, consumes Marie upon her return to her life as usual.

Marcus has a twin brother, Jason, who is killed trying to escape a violent group of bullies. Marcus is sent to foster care, because the children’s mother is a heroin addict and an alcoholic. The two people he most loves are taken away from him, and Marcus struggles to cope with the reality of his new circumstances.

Although these three narratives are concerned with themes of death, the movie is about life. It deals with life’s possible connection with the spiritual. It also shows how life can connect us all, even through death. Through the roles that death plays in these characters’ lives, we are brought to the singular moment where their lives are intertwined. And this is precisely why I claim that critics of the film are missing the point.

This movie is all about the emotional journey of these characters. In turn, these emotions lead them to make choices that will ultimately bring them and the film to their ultimate yet seemingly inevitable conclusion, despite how coincidental things may seem. (How fitting it is, then, that George’s literary hero is Charles Dickens.)

Maybe it is these coincidences that are our connection to whatever concept, notion, or reality of the hereafter exists in this film. The subway sequence involving Marcus and his hat and the final scene of the movie suggest that I am not too far off in my understanding.

The payoff of this movie depends upon the tedious setup, and that is why I dismiss the aforementioned critical response to the film’s pacing and length. I think any cuts in the film weaken the emotional threads of the movie. And for the conclusion to work (as in any movie), these threads must remain intact.

If my above analysis sounds hokey or confusing, it is because the film is dealing with something so uncertain and divisive; after all, consideration of the idea of an afterlife is no picnic. Despite all of this, skeptics of the hereafter or life after death will find this movie satisfying. This film connects itself to possible “spirituality” and the afterlife without being overtly spiritual.

It is a moving story, regardless of one’s belief about the subject matter. This universality, besides echoing the themes of the movie, is what makes it such a wonderful film. If I am wrong about this, though, at least we are all left believing in one thing at the end: the status of Clint Eastwood as one of America’s finest filmmakers of all time.

Running Time: 129 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG-13

My Rating: 3 ½ stars (***1/2)

Bottom Line: Although the story will tax the patience of an attention-deficient culture, it is a moving story that will satisfy regardless of your belief in the hereafter.

Bond franchise should be shaken, not stirred

2010-09-19T15:27:00.000-07:00

James Bond’s license to thrill has been revoked, at least for the time being.

Producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson announced back in April that the franchise was being shelved until the financial problems of studio MGM could be resolved. It is thought that the studio is behind on about $3.7 billion in debt.

There is much uncertainty surrounding a timetable for the franchise and the next film itself. There are conflicting reports as to whether production for the next film has been cancelled or merely postponed. There have even been reports that Sam Mendes, who was attached to direct the next film and then dropped out, has had second thoughts about his second thoughts and is still back in the mix to direct the next film.

(Yes, an Oscar-winning director is attached to the franchise.)

Despite the uncertainty, the only thing that is clear to me is that the reboot of the franchise has proven to be hit-or-miss for most people. It seems that the wildly popular “Casino Royale” is everyone’s new favorite, while “Quantum of Solace” left most moviegoers feeling incomplete.

This inconsistency seems to stem from the fact that the reboot was designed to get Bond back to basics, eliminating the increasingly outlandish use of gadgets and various other fantasy elements that were a staple of the early franchise (with the Roger Moore films being the worst offenders). This rebooted Bond is thought to be more in line with the Bond from Ian Fleming’s original novels.

This new, darker Bond was quite a treat for audiences in “Casino Royale,” but after seeing “Quantum of Solace” (which I liked), I couldn’t help but get the feeling I was seeing an extension of the Jason Bourne series. Although that probably has more to do with the story of “Quantum,” the new direction of the rebooted franchise also has its share of the blame.

There are a few elements I believe that are worth bringing back, if only to give some sort of continuity or familiarity with the new films. Still present are the title sequences, the exotic locales, the unique super-villains, and the various vehicles and sports cars. But there are two I would like to see make a return.

First, the franchise needs to see the return of a central nemesis, much like the criminal organization SPECTRE and its Number One Ernst Stavro Blofeld from the earlier movies. Whether there should be an archenemy like Blofeld is less important than an identifiable organization.

Although this may seem out of place with the rebooted franchise, it is entirely consistent with both “Casino” and “Quantum.” At the heart of both films are characters from a mysterious group called Quantum, which seems to function as a new sort of SPECTRE. I can only hope that Quantum continues to make its presence known going forward, given that is has proven to be quite the adversary to Bond in the last two films.

A second thing I would like to see for the future of the franchise is the return of familiar characters that were staples of past movies. Although the reboots have featured characters like M (played by the incomparable Judi Dench) and Felix Leiter, missing is Bond’s relationship with Q and Miss Moneypenny.

I know their relationships in past movies fell into a kind of contrived rhythm but having them around is not the issue. Some of the best moments from the past films included Desmond Llewelyn’s performance as the go-to gadget guy. If the writers can find ways of introducing them and keeping them around in fresh, original ways, then the franchise would be better for it.

Don't tell me you don't miss this guy.

Part of what makes “Casino Royale” such a great Bond movie is the fact that the reboot has put an emphasis on Bond as an emotional character, which was absent from pretty much every film prior to “Casino.” (The most notable exception is “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.) When the plot of a movie is actually driven by characters, then we get a good movie. However, after “Quantum of Solace,” the franchise seems headed for a dark place, probably due to the fact that Bond himself was going down a dark road.

Bond has always had its appeal in escapist fantasy, and reintroducing some of these old elements would help balance the gravitas of the direction the reboot has taken. And, this would only help Bond return to its rightful place as the most successful and enduring film franchise of all time.

Second-Guessing the Oscars

2010-08-03T22:21:00.001-07:00

“And the Oscar goes to…” This five-word phrase is all it takes to catapult a movie to the forefront of the film industry. That same phrase is also responsible for one of two things: cementing a film’s legacy among the greats of cinema or leaving a film branded as overrated.

A film’s reputation is affected by one aspect of films that is not immediately clear or measurable: how well a movie stands the test of time. I am not so sure that voters are too concerned with this aspect. However, having the benefit of hindsight, assessing the merits of past winners has become an interesting practice.

One such assessment that is often made is the lament of many who think that “Shakespeare in Love” should never have beaten “Saving Private Ryan” for Best Picture of 1998. Since I hesitate to make that claim so definitely, I will present a few other moments from Oscar history that left me scratching my head.

Let us start with the 2008 Best Picture race. “Slumdog Millionaire” may be the “worst” (think least deserving) Best Picture winner of the past decade. It is not that “Slumdog” is a flat-out horrible movie. It is just that I have found only a handful of people (both professional critics and average filmgoers) who believe “Slumdog” to be a better movie than “Milk,” “The Dark Knight,” “Gran Torino,” “WALL-E,” and “Vicky Cristina Barcelona.”

I could just be making a hasty generalization, but even without my bias toward “Slumdog” as Best Picture, it sure seems as if the Academy dropped the ball for 2008.

1994 is another interesting year. Unlike 2008, the controversy surrounding that year is a result of what has been previously mentioned: the test of time. “Forrest Gump” was the favorite to win the award for Best Picture, which it did. However, time has elevated the status of fellow nominees “The Shawshank Redemption” and “Pulp Fiction” to two of the greatest films of all time. (Although, I’m partial to a fourth nominee, “Quiz Show.”)

In this case, the Academy’s decision did not seem so bad at first. The popularity of both “Shawshank” and “Pulp Fiction” soared after their theatrical runs (although “Pulp Fiction” became one of the highest grossing “indie” films of all time). Only years later did the general public jump onboard with the critical praise that met both films upon their release. Plus, “Forrest Gump” is a very endearing movie that seems to elicit much more merit from audiences than say a “Slumdog.”

It is just a little astonishing, looking back on things, that “Forrest Gump” is the one that carry the tile Best Picture for the year 1994. In a year that brought about two or three of the best films of the past quarter century, “Forrest Gump” has the unfortunate pleasure of being the film that is second-guessed.

A list of grievances could go on and on. “Braveheart” over “Sense and Sensibility” and “Apollo 13” in 1995? “Raging Bull” and “Goodfellas” losing to “Ordinary People” and “Dances with Wolves,” respectively? Let’s not even get started on all the technical and acting categories. How “Citizen Kane” does not sweep the list of technical awards it is up for (Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Art Direction, etc.) is beyond me.

But for me, the biggest snub of all was Ingrid Bergman’s work on “Casablanca.” She was nominated for an Oscar, but the nomination was for another movie, “For Whom the Bell Tolls.” Although Bergman herself considers other performances to be her best, in a 2007 biography she was quoted as saying:

"I feel about ‘Casablanca’ that it has a life of its own. There is something mystical about it. It seems to have filled a need, a need that was there before the film, a need that the film filled.” The same could be said of her performance.

To say hindsight is 20/20 for the Oscars is a little misleading. Voting is a subjective process, people’s opinions change, and my own objections are merely opinion. Over time, though, the Academy’s choices do face a type of scrutiny that is unavoidable whenever awards are concerned. However, it is this dialogue that is indispensable for the arts, particularly movies.

Movie Review: Inception

2010-07-21T11:33:00.000-07:00

**** of **** (4 stars out of 4)

What is the best way to approach a film? It is a question that has been asked for a long time, with no clear answer provided. Some suggest that a visceral approach is the way to go, while others insist that films should have great intellectual appeal.

Fortunately for us viewers, “Inception” has decided to avoid such debate by giving us the best of both worlds. It is a film that engages the mind and captures the heart.

“Inception” is no more about dreams and corporate espionage than it is about one man’s struggle to escape the prison created for him by his past.

Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a skilled thief, the best in the dangerous art of extraction: stealing valuable secrets from deep within the subconscious during the dream state when the mind is at its most vulnerable.

Cobb’s rare ability has made him a coveted player in this treacherous new world of corporate espionage, but it has also made him an international fugitive and cost him everything he has ever loved, including his wife Mal (Marion Cotillard) and two children. Now Cobb is being offered a chance at redemption. One last job could give him his life back but only if he can accomplish the impossible—inception.

Instead of the perfect heist, Cobb and his team of specialists (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, and Dileep Rao) are hired by Saito (Ken Watanabe) to pull off the reverse; their task is not to steal an idea but to plant one. If they succeed, it could be the perfect crime. But lurking deep in these dreams is an enemy that seems to predict their every move. An enemy that only Cobb could have seen coming.

Pardon the cliché but to say more would do the movie injustice. Like most good films, the payoff is most fully experienced after taking the journey. And for “Inception,” this journey is like no other I can recall.

Director Christopher Nolan leads us on this journey with great skill and grace. But this is to be expected for someone who has been working on the script for ten years.

His skill and grace are best demonstrated by the fact that despite the constantly shifting nature of the story, the thread between Cobb and Mal provides an emotional anchor of sorts for the audience. Acting as a constant for Cobb, their relationship is the linchpin of the story.

Since this movie works because of this thread, much credit is due to both DiCaprio and Cotillard. Their work magnetizes the viewer, drawing us deeper and deeper into their story. The dynamic between the two is about as real as anything I have seen on film.

With these efforts from Nolan, DiCaprio, and Cotillard combined, this may be their finest hour yet. But combined with the terrific work of the other actors (most notably, Tom Hardy), composer Hans Zimmer, cinematographer Wally Pfister, production designer Guy Dyas, etc., “Inception” is truly something special.

Despite this praise, I do not think the film offers profound insight into the nature of reality and dreams, nor does it try to. Trying to tackle such subjects in a 148 min. movie would most likely lead to unsatisfying results.

Instead, this movie offers us a wonderful portrait of a man struggling with the separation of his dreams and memories from his reality. And this struggle is what allows for the film to have both its visceral appeal and its intellectual appeal.

Since I have longed for the day when I would discover a film that tugs equally at my mind and my heart, “Inception” is a dream come true.

The heart of the film.

The 3-D Gimmick

2010-07-06T21:50:00.000-07:00

Sorry in advance for no pretty picture. This will also serve as my first column for the new year (or under the new regime) of the CW (the Crimson White), the UA student newspaper. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject...

Hollywood is at it again. It has introduced yet another technology in hopes of enhancing audiences’ experience.
Like sound and color before it, 3-D is being met with the usual schism that accompanies such technological advancements. This division is usually along the line of which part of “show business” should be emphasized.
For studio heads, 3-D represents a wonderful business opportunity. Like the film advancements that came before it, 3-D offers moviegoers something innovative. It is not something that has emerged in too many homes—well, for now. The allure of 3-D is great way to draw in audiences.
However, filmmakers (the “show”) and studio heads (the “business”) clash over whether this desire to increase profit will hurt the quality and the future of movies. If studios decide that 3-D is the exclusive path they should take for movies, then filmmakers become limited in having the freedom to makes movies as they desire. It is this lack of freedom that could put a damper on the film industry.
Opponents of 3-D offer many of the same, although valid, reasons. Viewers can experience headaches or nausea. It adds little or nothing to the experience. In addition to these, an excessive surcharge is added to ticket prices.
I must confess I am sympathetic to the 2-D cause. 3-D has its place in the entertainment business. But I am convinced that it should remain a secondary option instead of becoming the sole future of movies.
I do not think it would be fair to omit that “Avatar” is a great example of how 3-D movies can be an astonishing visual ride. (James Cameron has proven that he is a great choice to lead the 3-D movement.) But 3-D adds nothing more than that, and the story does not become enhanced in any way.
What does 3-D do for movies like “An Education” or “Sideways?” Nothing. One could say that the color palette is improved, but this is not so. Images in 3-D are dimmer than those in 2-D.
An advocate of 3-D may claim that those films are obvious examples of films that do not benefit from the technology. So let us examine a movie that is a little less obvious: “The Hurt Locker.”
“The Hurt Locker” is a war film with its fair share of action. The cinematography essentially gives the audience a rat’s eye view. Increased depth could really give a whole new dimension to war films.
However, when I think of “The Hurt Locker,” the phrase “palpable tension” comes to mind. This movie, for better or for worse, decided that it would stake itself upon a premise of suspended tension. The payoff is rarely the explosion or lack thereof; it is a film that winds up showing just what it is that makes some soldiers addicted to war. In other words, the payoff is the wait.
So, the movie has some moments of action. But since the core of the film is staked upon a premise that is really not enhanced by 3-D technology, it seems as if 3-D should look elsewhere.
The worst offenders are the numerous movies (“Clash of the Titans” and the planned rerelease of Cameron’s “Titanic”) filmed in 2-D that are converted to 3-D. For “Clash,” it was apparent something got lost on the way to the theatre.
One of the biggest problems with my argument is there is no way to quantify whether or not 3D adds to the experience. It differs for everyone, and even then, different people may like it in some instances and not others. All we know is what we like, feel, know, etc. Opponents cannot prove that 3D does not add to their experience, just like 3-D supporters cannot prove it adds to their experience. We are just stuck with what we know to be true for us.

I do think most people would agree that 3-D does not enrich certain films or genres. I just cannot help but think that their number is so great as not to warrant the wide-scale expansion to 3-D as the dominant medium for motion pictures.

Cinephilosophy?

2010-06-17T00:47:00.000-07:00

Well, as my little info box reveals, I am a huge cinephile who happens to study philosophy. Often times, it's hard for me to ignore some great philosophical topics that I run across in film. As a hopeful law school attendee, the legal philosophical questions that certain movies ask are definitely some of the most intriguing.

Here are three films that you should see because they are great films. They just happen to offer up some great food-for-thought. (I will not give my personal opinion of the topics brought up. I just want to mention them, so you'll know what kind of fascinating dialogue is out there, waiting to be discussed.)

M (1931)

M is the first sound film from German Expressionist Fritz Lang. It details the search for a child serial killer (played by the great Peter Lorre). In the film, both the police and the criminals of the city begin separate manhunts for the killer (with the criminals using the city's beggars as their eyes). And while that dynamic between the two sides is very interesting, the roles and justification of roles each side plays are not the most fascinating questions to ponder.

Instead, that distinction belongs to the last twenty minutes of the movie. During this time, two ideas are presented: 1) To what extent does the justice system fail in terms of punishment? 2) Are there times when criminals can not be held responsible or accountable, and if so, should this fully acquit them of the supposed wrongs they've committed.

The film does an excellent job of showing how 1) and 2) are connected, meaning that any answer you think is correct to one or the other might have unforeseen consequences you may not want for the other.

Rashomon (1950)

Akira Kurosawa is considered one of the world's greatest filmmakers of all-time, and Rashomon is considered one of his masterpieces. Rashomon tells the story of a rape and murder trial. Told through flashbacks, the film presents four versions of the events from different witnesses, each contradicting the other.

At the heart of this story are questions about honesty. How vital is it that the testimony our courts rely upon be accurate? What kinds of ramifications might dishonesty have? Are these acceptable in certain instances?

Broader questions include the morality of being completely honest. What's worst: our actions or lying about them? Who's best equipped to tell the truth? What do we have to gain or lose through lying?

Now, some of this may seem pretty cut-and-dried. However, the film does an excellent job of showing why the answers to this question are not as easy as they appear. Can one be on morally higher ground by admitting to a murder than admitting to other actual actions?

12 Angry Men (1957)

Probably my favorite of the three films. 12 Angry Men simply shows a jury deliberation in a murder trial. I say simply because although this plot may be the simplest of the three films, the questions brought up are just as compelling.

(Before I continue, this film has an all-star cast of Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Martin Balsam, Ed Begley, Jack Warden, and Jack Klugman and is directed by the incredibly talented Sidney Lumet.)

Some of the issues brought up by 12 Angry Men include: is reasonable doubt a good basis for the criminal law? Should juries have to reach a unanimous verdict? Why or why not? What responsibility do jurors have to the accused? The victims and their families? What, if any, kind of compromise is acceptable in jury deliberation, given the stakes? Do the positives of a jury-based legal system outweigh the negatives?

I challenge you to see these films because they really are great films, folks. These films make us think critically about the questions/issues above, presenting them in a way that takes the black-and-white nature out of many of the assumptions we have about legal philosophy.

The End

2010-05-23T14:31:00.000-07:00

Namaste...

LOST comes to an end tonight.

Not really saddened by this news. The creative forces asked for it to end because they knew what story they wanted to tell. This tells me that the show has always been in good hands and will probably end in a very fulfilling manner. I'm keeping all expectations out of the experience, however.

This show has given viewers a journey unlike anything we've ever seen, and I'm ready to see our characters' story get their finale. The characters have always been at the heart of the show for me. The "mythology" aspects are entertaining and do serve their purpose in helping the story along. But this show is the best show on TV (aka, restored my faith in television) because of the characters and their story.

The laughs and tears along the way have come from them. The heartbreak, sorrow, jubilation, and joy are owed to them.

I don't know what my reaction will be. Frankly, I don't care (provided it's not "That's it!?"). I've always placed faith in the writers, never seriously questioning a single decision they've made. Some say this is my biggest fault in watching this show. That may turn out to be true, but I've always maintained that until it's done and we have the big picture, I'm not in a position to judge/question. Yes, I have both positive and negative emotional reactions to the events in the show. The emotional journey is unparalleled. But I have never interjected a personal vision into the show.

So, with that in mind, I enter the finale with great anticipation but no expectations. I look forward to the last Dharma van ride, accompanied with some Three Dog Night, along this journey. It's been incredible so far. Now let's see what the last 2.5 hours hold...

NOTE: I will be watching the finale tomorrow (for personal reasons), so I will be going "silent" or "off-the-grid" with respect to all forms of communication and electronics. I can and will address it when I've seen it.

In the Loop - An Instant Classic

2010-05-13T20:57:00.000-07:00

For those that don't know, I adhere to a strict 24-hour rule when it comes to watching movies. That is, I refuse to form an official opinion regarding the film, given the emotions that result from the immediacy of a viewing. Yes, films are designed to make us feel something, and I'm not saying I'm trying to lose those feelings. I just want to see if they are rather fleeting.

There is something to be said for how we feel immediately after a movie. Some might argue those feelings are more profound and can never be matched. Others argue that the more profound feelings are those we have days, weeks, or even years after we've seen a movie (for the first time).

I don't want to argue the above disagreement. Instead, I was simply explaining a sort of "litmus test" I have for cinema. (Although, that's not really the best description; neither is "barometer," so we'll just move on.)

Well, every so often, a film comes along that doesn't need the 24-hour rule. These films are rarely the terrible ones. (Yes, Tommy, I am talking to you.) To use a borrowed moniker, these are the "instant classics." The Dark Knight was one such film for me. However, since that time in 2008, I haven't really had any films that really didn't require the 24-hour rule. I may have said that about certain films, but I think I was getting carried away with my feelings.

Consider In the Loop (2009) the latest such film. I just recently saw this movie, and it was a riot. I haven't laughed that hard or frequently in quite some time, if ever. I am tempted to say it's the funniest movie I've seen, but I'll grant that that claim should not be definitively spoken/written for some time.

But I do know that this film is a masterpiece, regardless of where it ranks on a list of comedies. It is a British comedy film, satirizing 21st-century politics. More specifically, U.S. and British build-up to a war in the Middle East (think the 2nd Gulf War, aka the Iraq War).

Don't be alarmed by the political themes. It is great comedy in itself and as someone who refuses to come down on either side of the fence regarding the war, I did not ever feel that whatever political message there may be was never in the way of my enjoyment of terrific writing and acting and some of the best one-lines I've ever heard. Comedy came first, as it should. (Feel free to disagree with that last claim, as it is a strong one.)

The only thing one could possibly be alarmed with is the "language." (I hate that term. What makes certain words "language" while the rest are just language?) I never thought it was an issue, probably because I was laughing nonstop. But, if you do have a problem with that, be warned here and now.

I won't speak much to the plot, as there is a fair amount of intrigue, especially near the end. Just know that this is one of the few films to which I will stake my reputation. To quote A.O. Scott (critic at The New York Times, with whom I have my fair share of disagreements):

"The audience, meanwhile, is likely to die laughing. While “In the Loop” is a highly disciplined inquiry into a very serious subject, it is also, line by filthy line, scene by chaotic scene, by far the funniest big-screen satire in recent memory."

Directed by Armando Iannucci; written by Mr. Iannucci, Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell and Tony Roche; released by IFC Films. Running time: 1 hour 46 minutes. This film is not rated.

WITH: Anna Chlumsky (Liza), Chris Addison (Toby), David Rasche (Linton), Gina McKee (Judy), James Gandolfini (General Miller), Mimi Kennedy (Karen), Olivia Poulet (Suzy), Peter Capaldi (Malcolm Tucker), Steve Coogan (Paul Michaelson), Tom Hollander (Simon Foster) and Zach Woods (Chad).

P.S. Here is an excellent clip, although it is very representative of the aforementioned "language" issue.

The Sixteen Year Gap or: The Western Revival

2010-05-01T10:27:00.000-07:00

"People are always asking me why they don't make Westerns like they used to."

- Roy Rogers

Heck, I even find myself asking this very question about the past decade or so. For a while, the last great Western was Unforgiven (1992). Tombstone (1993) and Wyatt Earp (1994) are very good films that tried to correct this, but they just do not have the staying power that Eastwood's masterpiece has.

Thankfully, though, the second half of this past decade saw a resurgence of Westerns that are probably some of the best since the early 90s. The year 2007 was especially kind in this regard. That year saw the release of three Westerns that have to be considered amongst this resurgence, mostly due to the fact that they offer a breath of fresh air, some spark of originality.

The three from 2007 that I am referring to are The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Seraphim Falls, and 3:10 to Yuma. These three films have unique visual styles. They have stories that are not only fresh in terms of cinema as a whole but even in their Western genre. (Yes, I took into account that 3:10 to Yuma is a remake.)

These three films also have tremendous casts. The level of acting in Westerns has changed considerably since Leone's "Spaghetti Westerns," and these three films are great illustrations of how it has changed for the better. Plus, Russell Crowe and Liam Neeson are two of my favorite actors, so their presence in any film is bound to elevate the level of the cast in my eyes.

There are many types of Westerns, and two of the most popular types are the Outlaw and the Revisionist Westerns. Jesse James and 3:10 are your Outlaw Westerns. Seraphim Falls has the distinction of being what some call a Revisionist Western, in that the romanticism of the the Traditional Western is bucked for a darker tone that favors elements of realism. (Actually, Jesse James is probably a mix of Outlaw and Revisionist.)

Another Western of the Outlaw/Revisionist mix is Australia's The Proposition (2005). I hate to sound repetitive, but this film stands out for the same reasons as the previous three: a strong cast, a fresh story, and a unique visual style. The Proposition is probably edgier, grittier, and more intense that the above three, which is saying something considering just how violent and rough the previous three are.

Although the Space Western is normally considered more science fiction than western, 2005's Space Western entry Serenity (a continuation of the Fox series Firefly) has always felt more like a Western. Of course, enjoyment of this movie is 5x better if you are familiar with the TV series and 10x better if you have seen Firefly in its entirety (not too difficult considering Fox made one of the worst decisions in television history by canceling it and leaving us with only 14 episodes). Malcolm Reynolds is one of the most enduring characters of all-time, due in large part to terrific writing and the incredible acting of Nathan Fillion. Without a doubt, Serenity joins the other four films as part of the resurgence of good Westerns.

The final film I will mention is also the only Traditional Western of the bunch: Appaloosa (2008). Because it is based on Robert B. Parker's novel of the same name, it is a foregone conclusion that whatever weaknesses the film has are not a result of the writing. It turns out, though, that this film's only weakness is just one cast member (Renee Zellweger). Outside of that, the film tells a story that never loosens its grip on the audience. The dialogue is fantastic, but the more impressive is just how no-frills the story is. The characters are actually at the heart of this story.

Another example of its realistic, no-frills story is that one very important shootout in the movie is over before you even have time to process what has happened. Instead of some elaborate, drawn-out sequence, the story paints a picture of how things like that most likely went down. I was amazed at the power of its brevity, considering the amount of tension that was a part of the set-up. I had never seen anything like that before in any movie, especially a Western.

In my opinion, Appaloosa is one of the new great westerns (despite its previously mentioned flaw). The other five are very good films that have also been a part of the recent resurgence of good, fresh Westerns. Now, why there was a fifteen-year hiatus of good westerns is a mystery to me and a matter of debate between myself and other moviegoers. But at least it isn't a problem we are dealing with currently.

P.S.

On which side of the great debate do you find yourself?

A Toaster with Pictures?

2010-04-26T22:49:00.000-07:00

"Television is just another appliance. It's just a toaster with pictures."

- Mark S. Fowler, former FCC Chairman

You mean this thing?

You see, I prefer this guy.

Sure thing, Mark. Whatever you say.

Wait, what's that Billy?

"It used to be that we in films were the lowest form of art. Now we have something to look down on."

- Billy Wilder (supposedly)

"Television is called a medium because it is neither rare or well done."

Ooo, big talk from Mr. Anony Mous.

These three people have one thing common: they fail at life.

In all seriousness, I'm afraid these guys must have missed out on quality television. I say this because television has become a player in my life. This has only happened recently, though.

Before 2004, outside of reruns of certain childhood staples like "Home Improvement" and certain Nickelodeon shows like "Legends of the Hidden Temple" and "Are You Afraid of the Dark?," television had no value for me. Considering we were/are in the age of the sitcoms, it was hard to find shows that separated themselves from the rest of the pack by offering something to us viewers. ("Seinfeld" reurns, you are excused.)

That all changed when I saw a TV spot for some show that looked like Cast Away on steroids and with an actual cast.

Of course, I'm referring to "Lost."

According to Leibniz, the "best of all possible" shows.

This show is solely responsible for my current television-watching habits. It restored my faith in television. It also helped pave the way for shows that abandoned the sitcom genre. (To be fair, these kinds of shows were already prevalent on certain pay-for-TV channels like HBO, Showtime, etc.) For all of this, I'm very grateful.

Probably because I now find myself closely following many shows. I've invested a lot of time and emotions into these. Because doing anything less completely undermines why someone would chose to be entertained by a story-telling medium.

So, in order to share my excitement and enjoyment of these shows,--and so maybe you can learn a little bit more about me--I've decided to highlight some of my favorites.

This is not a comprehensive list. And these are only shows that are currently on TV. (Not currently airing, necessarily.) If a show is not on this list, it doesn't mean I don't enjoy it. I can name about 15 shows that I thoroughly enjoy. These are just some of the ones that I enjoy more. (Heck, let's not forget that it might be the case that I haven't even seen a particular show.)

For example:

"The Office" has left me crying from laughter. I can't even begin to recount the number of times I've probably woken up surrounding rooms with a hardy guffaw. But I'm not including it on this list.

"FlashForward" has a very interesting premise that probably has more philosophical implications than any other show I watch. (Yes, that includes "Lost.") But I'm not listing it.

Simply put, these are the shows that permeate my thoughts more than the others. Their episodes have stayed with me for weeks, months, and even years after the initial viewing.

So, without further ado, some of my favorite shows currently on TV (in alphabetical order, except the last one for the most obvious reason):

[Well, let me stop here and go ahead and say this: all of these shows are fantastic for many reasons. At the heart of them is fantabulous writing. So, I will try to avoid repetition by giving general props to the writers. I'll try to mention certain aspects of the writing for each show. (Also, I'm avoiding synopses because those are easily accessible.)]

"Castle"

"Castle" is a rare breed of show. The show is not a straight-up comedy or drama. It's leads, Stana Katic and Nathan Fillion, are dazzling in their performances. Their chemistry is rarely seen on television, film or stage. This on top of the fact that it features some of the best writing/dialogue I've seen since "Gilmore Girls."

Now, to be honest, I have often times tuned out during certain cases, simply because I'm so caught up in the actors and their characters. "But Jordan, doesn't that mean that the writing can't be all that good since it doesn't command your attention?"

No, I don't believe it does. The cases themselves are always a treat, since they are very original/creative. And the cases do lead to a character growth over the season. It's just that Fillion and Katic, along with Jon Huertas and Seamus Dever, are always doing so much in a scene, I will focus on the little nuances and gems in their performance.

The set-up/payoff in this show is great. For example, Episode 2.13 "Sucker Punch" may be one of the best hours of television I have ever seen. Ever. Why? Because the show had been building to a point, and this episode gave us that while opening up a related can of worms. It gave us so much, yet the mystery lingered/lingers on. (I might also add it's the only episode of "Castle" that has moved me to tears. That episode was so good, my friends, so good.)

Bottom Line: If you are a fan of clever but fun television, this show delivers because of characters that are wonderfully written and acted. The chemistry of the leads is enough to make this one of the best shows currently on television.

"Glee"

Let's be clear: this show, like any other, has its faults. But more people are less willing to forgive the ones of "Glee" for some unknown reason. I'll be honest: these people either are way too critical (especially given the current state of television) or they have no joy in their life.

But "Glee" is simply that: 43 minutes of joy.

I was very frustrated at first, because all these characters had to do in the first part of Season 1 was simply tell the truth. Their problems were easily avoidable, so I had a hard time caring about their struggles.

But then two things happened. 1) I realized every show I watch has its characters suffering from a lack of honest and forthcoming behavior. Every.Single.One. 2) The show got better/matured/became more honest with itself.

That has been the key. Take for instance the latest episode, 1.16 or "Home." For the longest time, the characters have been so selfish. Not a bad thing if the writing were not as sympathetic to that as it had been earlier in the season. Finally, though, the show called out this selfishness: Burt Hummel became the voice of reason. (Who woulda thunk it!?)

I could compliment the writers for wonderful characters and the lines they utter, the actors who do a great job bringing these characters to life, the wonderful soundtrack that features wonderful music, voices, arrangements, covers, etc. But that should be obvious.

So should the aspect I am gonna compliment instead. But she's so terrific, I had to give Jane Lynch props. Now, she benefits from the show's best lines/writing, but Jane Lynch does a masterful job nonetheless. Sue is without a doubt the only person I root for unconditionally, despite her terrible nature.

Bottom Line: Deftly balancing a unique combination of humor, drama and music, "Glee" is able to lift the soul. Because it does the best job of that out the shows on this list, it is one of the best shows currently on television.

"Lie to Me"

This show is probably going to be cancelled. A real shame, considering this show is very well crafted.

At the heart of LtM is one of my favorite sciences: interpreting microexpressions, through the Facial Action Coding System, and body language. (Thanks Wiki!) This show doesn't get bogged down by the science, though. That's probably because Tim Roth (Dr. Cal Lightman, the main character) is the man.

Of all these shows, he's probably the strongest lead. It's a real treat that he is getting a wider range of exposure because he is most definitely in the exclusive group of exceptional actors.

During the first season, the show kinda hit the "procedural" routine. However, because of the talent behind this show, it's one of the few that can keep it fresh. Plus, all shows have a story arc that spans the entirety of the series, one that spans the entirety of its seasons, and one that spans only the length of its episodes.

I think one reason this show works so well is that even the episode story arcs are not wasted because unlike a "Law and Order," our characters' other arcs are influenced.

Bottom Line: Even though this show is the least publicized of these six, it's one of the most interesting and, as a result, one of best shows currently on television.

"Mad Men"

MM is outstanding. The biggest reason I'm a fan is because it captures the psychology and sociology of a by-gone era. (Maybe "era" isn't the best word since Season 1 takes place right as the 1960s are just beginning.) After reading "Revolutionary Road" and seeing how well Richard Yates gave that time a distinct feel, it's great to see MM do that with equal, if not more, success.

The feel of that time is captured through the dialogue, the sets, the costumes, the makeup/hair, etc. No attention to detail seems to be spared. Heck, I know the word "swell" has fallen off the map now, but I find myself using it just as frequently as these characters do.

Because of how much emotion I invest in shows (especially the ones I really enjoy, and especially these six), I find that this show is the most difficult to watch. It's definitely the darkest of these six, but "dark" is not the best word. Neither is "tragic." Wait, "melancholic" is it. Yup, "melancholic." This doesn't make the show unbearable as I may have suggested earlier. Just that this show takes a heavier emotional toll on me.

Jon Hamm is excellent as Don Draper, one of the most compelling characters of any story. Add to him a very solid cast and writing that takes hold of you (and never lets go) and the results are highly successful.

Bottom Line: A show with little to no faults, "Mad Men" has taken story-telling to a new level. Because of this and how well it acts as a case study or time capsule of a by-gone time, "Mad Men" is one of the best shows currently on television.

"Modern Family"

This may be the only 21-minute show on the list, but it definitely has the most comedic bang for the buck. The beauty of this show is that it captures the true essence of the family dynamic. If great comedy is simply great observation, then this show has figured it out. These things are funny in and of themselves, but what puts it over the top is that the comedy has an uncanny ability to resemble the truth of it all.

Great comedic ensemble performance from the cast. In a cast that includes Julie Bowen, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Eric Stonestreet, and Ed O'Neill, Ty Burrell is definitely the one with the best individual performance. He has his character down so well, I wanna call him Phil Dunphy anytime I see him in a performance outside MF. Just cracks me up seeing him on-screen.

The show has great rhythm. Probably the best of the list. I mean, MF is comedy, which tends to depend on excellent rhythm and timing.

Bottom Line: This show is an absolute riot. Given that this show procures more laughter than any other show airing, it's one of the best shows currently on television.

"Lost"

For me to say why this show is on this list is really difficult, given that this is the best show on television and the one that brought me back to TV (is)land.

This show is criticized for its slowly realized sci-fi theme. Too bad, it's always been about the characters. Yes, the island mythology is absorbing and fascinating. But for me, it has always been about the characters. And even when the show is done, it will continue to be about the characters. Forget getting caught up in the otherwise trivial mysteries. (Which, I admit, can be fun.)

I don't even know how to describe the emotions that begin to swell when I think about the characters and their story. I'm not sure what'll happen when the show is over, but my emotions will be high. Even if it is simple contentment, it will be an overwhelming feeling of being content/satisfied.

I have slowly realized that Michael Giacchino may be my favorite movie/television composer. He has offered us numerous scores that are great. It was only a matter of time he was recognized, and thanks to "Up," he got his recognition. But his work on "Lost" is his best. And--I realize this may sound ludicrous--I am slowly warming to the idea that his work on "Lost" may be my favorite score all-time, television or movie.

"Lost" has the best acting of any show, from the top to the bottom of the cast. Terry O'Quinn and Michael Emerson play my favorite characters. They also happen to be the best actors of the bunch. Coincidence? Maybe... probably, actually.

I am leaving out a ton of stuff that should be mentioned, but succinctly putting my feelings of "Lost" into words is rather difficult to begin with. So, I'll just let what incoherent mess I've left above stand by itself.

Bottom Line: A show with no faults. Excellent in every way. Any positive aspects of a TV show or the making of a television show you can think of, "Lost" has. But the characters and their story alone make this the best show currently on television.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Now your turn: what are your thoughts? Agree or disagree? Why? Maybe you have further questions about a show?

***But most importantly: what am I missing here? What belongs? Which shows are must-sees?***

Ranking the Best Picture Winners (2000-2009)

2010-04-11T20:01:00.000-07:00

I don't know how much explanation you'll find sufficient. I hope that however much I write about a film, there is a clear reasoning behind it.

10. Slumdog Millionaire

This has got to be one of the most overrated films of the past decade. The script was decent, in that there were many setup/payoff moments that were great. However, I never felt like the main character had anything at stake or that it was doubtful he'd win. Some say that shouldn't matter, but since the film's tone tried to make it matter to us, it's failure to offer me suspense is a big detraction. There were even moment where I was just flat-out bored.

This film also ranks so low due to the fact that it benefitted from a weak Oscar field. Seriously, how could Gran Torino or The Dark Knight not get nominated!? (And look at this poster: thank goodness they are not giving anything away...)

Slumdog's last place position on this list is a strong indictment of my feelings toward it. However, to make matter worse, this film grades significantly lower than the rest of the films. That is, the biggest gap in quality is between #10 and #9. Slumdog is the only film on this list I don't enjoy. Although I like #9-1, there is also a clear distinction amongst them as to which are the better films.

For example, take...

9. Chicago

This is a fun and entertaining film. About the only weak spot that cannot be overcome is Renee Zellweger. Other than that, this film sizzles with the same energy that made the stage production a success.

The best part of the production numbers, oddly enough, is the music. In a visual medium, its Danny Elfman's work with the Kander & Ebb source that makes this film what it is. It is only enhanced by the film's stylish visuals.

But this film does have its faults. The story is not as clear and tight as it should be, jumping from character to character like... well, a stage play. But, this film is a good experience overall.

8. Crash

Crash is in the same tier as Chicago: much better than Slumdog but clearly behind the other films, due to its weaknesses.

Crash really rubs some people the wrong way. For everyone that feels the film handled the themes of prejudice and racism with great candor and care, there is someone who feels the film is insensitive and exploitative.

To me, though, my problem is with the Dickensian way that numerous coincidences hurl our characters into the heart of their stories. You can show the type of interconnectedness the film is aiming for without the use of freak chance.

But the direction and the acting are strong. And the script does manage to overcome its weaknesses for the most part, because I was affected and my emotions were stirred.

7. The Hurt Locker

The Hurt Locker is a film that many people down South really think is overrated. I thought it was a wonderful piece of filmmaking. Editing was awesome. Like Crash, the director and actors are in full control of their roles.

The criticism it most receives is that it is boring/predictable/just okay. I never felt that way, so we'll just have to disagree. The tension in the film is gonna be different for everyone, so there is no way to say that someone is just wrong for feeling one way or the other.

My only issue with the film is its length. I don't say that, though, because of boredom or the issues I mentioned above. The film had its share of scenes that, looking back, I enjoyed but could have been cut without hurting the film.

This film, along with the six ranked above it, are in that tier where weaknesses in the films are few and far between. These films are the good/great films.

6. No Country for Old Men

For my money, Michael Clayton was the best film of 2007. That's a strong statement, considering the amount of love No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood get. Heck, those two films are ones I really enjoyed. (Yes, I did enjoy TWBB.)

This film is beautifully shot. I don't know if there is anyone better at directing atmospheric films. The Coen Bros. do a masterful job of that. This film also has tremendous dialogue, for which I confess I have a sweet spot.

Some people complain about the pace and/or the ending. I'll admit, I was perplexed the first time, as I had drifted off during Tommy Lee Jones's monologue at the end. When I saw the screen abruptly go black, I felt irritated. But in that instance, I was to blame.

Whenever I see it again, it makes perfect sense. Even though TLJ's character is considered a supporting one, the title/theme of the film has his character at its heart. So, if you were annoyed but haven't revisited it, I recommend you do so. If you have done so and were still irritated, then we have another fundamental difference for which there is no and should be no resolution.

5. The Departed

Even if this movie was terrible, Floyd's "Comfortably Numb" with Van Morrison would place this in the top 5. It only helps that this film is dynamite.

Such a volatile film... language and violence that would make Tarantino blush. Yet, I never felt it was gratuitous (even Mark Wahlberg's character).

The acting is at such a high level. The cast does a terrific job with William Monahan's script.

Gotta love cop mysteries. Especially ones by Scorsese. Especially ones with the ending this film has. So shocked by the last 20 minutes of this movie. Holy crap!

Some people think this may be one of Scorsese's weaker films. They probably hold this film to a higher standard, since it is the one that brought him much Oscar gold. But, this film is a great effort by Scorsese and will become a classic in his canon (if it isn't already).

4. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

The last installment of my generation's Star Wars trilogy. 'nough said.

3. Million Dollar Baby

I'm pretty sure men everywhere have a man-crush on Clint. If you are a man and this strikes you as curious, you are probably cursed forever...

This may be Eastwood's most mature film as a director. This, or Letters from Iwo Jima. Of course, I may be biased when it comes to Eastwood, as two of his films made it into my Top 20 Films of the Past Decade list.

But I don't think I am that biased. I ask you: name a weakness of Million Dollar Baby. It is hard for me to come up with one. Some people may complain about the pace, but this story's second half thrives upon the film slowing down.

2. Gladiator

These next two films also made it onto my tops films of the past decade. They are very different, but for me to pick one over the other is almost impossible. (I initially had them tied, but I didn't want to get called out for copping out.)

Of course, Russell Crowe is the common link. He is one of the greatest actors on the current scene. I imagine his work will stand the test of time and place him in the conversation of the all-time greats.

His performances here, along with the performance of Joaquin Phoenix, are what make this film incredible. Joaquin did so well, I used to hate him in other films because of how well he portrayed one of the cinema's great new bad guys.

Of course, Ridley Scott is one of my favorite directors of all time. His visual style is unmatched. He does a fantastic job of surrounding himself with incredible talent, too.

Like Hans Zimmer. His score is simply outstanding. (Heck, just see the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy.)

But what makes this film so good is the story. So heartbreaking at times, so triumphant at others. The mood of the film is balanced, most likely due to the great screenplay. (Well, ignoring the huge historical inaccuracies of the script helps.)

1. A Beautiful Mind

I know this film is called "overrated" by many. For the life of me, I do not know why. Maybe many people feel duped by the end.

But that is precisely why this film is so effective. To experience the same shock and disbelief that Nash himself probably felt when he was told the truth is an absolutely breathtaking cinematic experience. Akiva Goldsman's script is perfect. As a result, of the ten films listed here, this film has the most emotional impact on me.

This is Crowe's best work. I know he won the Oscar for Gladiator but this film should have won him his second. Jennifer Connelly is also amazing, and this is the film that should have snapped Ed Harris's streak of Oscar snubs.

It's hard for me to put into words just how much I love this film. I know one might argue that if it's so good, it should be no problem to say why. But that's precisely it: it's just so obvious that this film is incredible, having to justify why is like justifying why someone should eat when they are hungry. (Man, I hope that makes sense.)

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Anyway, I hope this has been a decent post. If there are any glaring lapses in reason or if I have been unclear or if you simply want to discuss the mertis (or lack thereof) of any of the above films, I'd love to do so.

P.S. Although I did mention it for a few times, let's save talk for whether these films deserved Best Picture for later.

Movie Review: Date Night

2010-04-11T14:51:00.000-07:00

**1/2 of **** (2.5 stars out of 4)

Phil & Claire Foster on the run, for fear they will get whacked off.

Phil and Claire Foster (Steve Carell and Tina Fey) are a married couple from New Jersey whose domestic life has become mundane and routine. He is a tax advisor and she is a realtor. They have a weekly “date night” at the local steakhouse, where they play a game that involves them making guesses on surrounding couples’ stories.

They learn during their book club that their best friends, Brad (Mark Ruffalo) and Haley (Kristen Wiig), have become bored by their marriage and are getting a divorce. Many of the reasons they give to Phil and Claire mirror the Foster’s own marriage. So, in an effort to spice up their romance, Phil takes Claire to a trendy, hard-to-get-into Manhattan seafood restaurant—aptly named “Claw.”

Phil decides to take a reservation from the Tripplehorns, who have decided to no-show. Halfway through their meal, two men named Armstrong (Jimmi Simpson) and Collins (Common) take the Fosters out back to question them about a flash drive they believe Phil and Claire stole from mob boss Joe Miletto (Ray Liotta). After being threatened at gunpoint and not seeing any other way out of their predicament, Phil decides to assume the identity of the Tripplehorns and lead them to the flash drive.

Phil’s only plan is to fly by the seat of his pants, and as a result the script gives the rest of the film’s story a fly by night feel. The film’s humor quickly disappears at times. This rarely happens, though, when Steve Carell and Tina Fey are on-screen. Even if they had no chemistry, they are masters of their comedy craft. That they have the ability to make viewers like the Fosters and root for their seemingly simple quest of enjoying a nice date night only adds to their scenes and the story.

However, the movie is very uneven. So much that at certain times, I was thinking “Just shut up already” immediately after a round of boisterous laughter. With some of the talent director Shawn Levy (Cheaper by the Dozen & Night at the Museum) has at his disposal, it is a real shame he could not make a more solid film.

Surprisingly enough, Date Night has its share of story logic. That is, the film does its best to avoid suffering from moments that do no follow from the actions or the personalities of the characters. But the unevenness comes from those instances where it fails to do so. Those scenes shoot themselves in the foot by allowing their middle sections to spiral out of control or to go over-the-top. During the chase scene, it seemed like loud noises were the only constituent. Whether it was due to the volume of the sound in the theater or the obnoxious yelling and effects from the film itself, the potential of the chase scene fizzled out in less than twenty seconds.

Outside of their own mastery of the material, our leads are subjected to scenes and characters that derive their humor from some external source. The humor rarely comes from the story. Rather, it tries to be the result of some contrived mess of circumstances that can cause us to laugh. But the good moments follow from the effort Carell and Fey put forth in staying true to their characters.

Great comedies often times have come from outlandish circumstances, and Date Night has these. But those great comedies do not lose themselves or their focus in all the mayhem. Instead, its characters drive it home. And more often that not, Date Night has its stretches where there is no one behind the wheel.

P.S. I am big fan of William Fichtner. He has a hilarious role in this movie. So, just remember:

This Guy

+

His Broom

=

Comedy Gold

Movie Review: Clash of the Titans

2010-04-04T15:01:00.000-07:00

*** of **** (3 stars out of 4)

Clash of the Titans is a wonderful experience for fans of the genre. It is technically impressive and a great roller coaster ride that should allow most viewers to have a fun time. However, it does have its faults, many of which might prove insurmountable for viewers that have no idea what they are getting themselves into.

Clash of the Titans is a remake of the 1981 fantasy adventure film of the same name. Whereas the original has a veteran cast that consists of Maggie Smith, Ursula Andress, Jack Gwillim, and the great Laurence Olivier, we are treated to a cast of rising stars mixed with a fair share of veteran actors.

Perseus (Sam Worthington) is a demi-god--the son of Zeus (Liam Neeson), no less--raised as a fisherman by a human family. Mankind has begun to forsake the gods, and Perseus and his family come across soldiers from Argos toppling a gigantic statue of Zeus into the ocean. Hades (Ralph Fiennes) attacks the humans, killing many of the soldiers and Perseus’s family. Driven by the death of his family, Perseus begins his quest against the gods, in order to kill Hades.

He does not go it alone, as he is aided by Io (Gemma Arterton), the King of Argos (Vincent Regan), and a small group of soldiers, led by Draco (Mads Mikkelsen). Along the way, they run across giant scorpions, magical sand spirits named Djinn, Stygian Witches, and the always-creepy gorgon Medusa. All of this happens in a race against time, as Hades has demanded that Argos repent for its sins. Should Argos not sacrifice the king’s daughter Andromeda (Alexa Davalos) in ten days, Hades will release the Kraken upon Argos, effectively destroying mankind.

This simple quest is framed by a running time of 118 minutes. As a result, the movie suffers from an uneven pace. However, even though editors David Freeman and Vincent Tabaillon struggle with giving the film a nice, steady feeling, the action sequences are the highlight of the film. The action scenes never feel rushed and the story is never cheated during these scenes.

Many of these editing issues can probably be attributed to a script that unsuccessfully tries to juggle the plethora of action scenes with the rest of the story. The script also suffers from some of the most outrageous dialogue I have experienced in an action movie. But the film never takes itself too serious. In fact, that outrageous dialogue is at the heart of some of the films intentionally humorous moments.

Despite the flaws listed above, this film works for its target audience. Anyone who is fan of movies like this knows what they are getting themselves into. We go to have fun. We expect to see outrageous action. And there is nothing wrong with that. Where some films fail is their inability to transcend the ordinary and what has been seen before.

Clash of the Titans does not fall into this trap. Our heroes struggle with their enemies. And it never becomes too obvious that our characters are experiencing an obligatory struggle just for the sake of sustaining the length of the movie. Often times, the characters and their weaknesses are the source of their struggle, so it is refreshing to see an action film that is somewhat driven by the characters.

Yes, this film has its weaknesses. They are not the kind that can be put out of mind easily. However, this movie never pretends to be something it is not. Consequently, many viewers including fans of fantasy action epics can enjoy a fun, wild, and ultimately entertaining film.

Release the Liam!

Movie Review: The Bounty Hunter

2010-03-20T21:54:00.000-07:00

This movie works when it slows down.

Too bad it never does.

Every so often, a film comes along that defies all expectations. Star Wars and Avatar ruled the box office despite their sci fi themes. Slumdog Millionaire dominated the Academy Awards. Now, I must admit my expectations for The Bounty Hunter were rather weak. I was hoping only for some shimmer of originality, and that maybe the script would limit the number of romantic comedy or action clichés.

No dice, my friends. The Bounty Hunter goes above and beyond the call of duty to include everything we have seen in the way of genre clichés. The characters are caricatures, and the plot is absurd.

The film stars Gerard Butler as struggling bounty hunter Milo Boyd and Jennifer Aniston as his bail-jumping ex-wife, reporter Nicole Hurly. Much to his delight, Milo learns that Nicole is his next target and begins his assignment with enthusiasm. He thinks all that's ahead is an easy payday, but when Nicole gives him the slip so she can chase a lead on a murder cover-up, they find themselves on the run for their lives.

And that is all there is to it. Naturally, there is the bit about whether or not they wind up getting back together. Oddly enough, though, this is the only part of the movie that had any redeeming value, despite its predictability. One reason would be the tremendous chemistry between Gerard Butler and Jennifer Aniston.

One scene that really worked for me was their time spent at Cupid’s Cabin, a type of romantic bed and breakfast. They share a nice candlelight dinner, eventually expressing their true feelings for one another and admitting to making mistakes. It was a very honest scene that was effective due to its writing and the work of the actors. Even their subsequent return to the honeymoon suite was an enjoyable and funny moment. Together, these two scenes combine to make the highlight of the film.

This film and its script work when things slow down. But that’s the problem: the film rarely does.

Instead, we are treated to all of the improbable and CGI-laden action, ridiculous car chase sequences, and plenty of shots of Nicole running around in her tight skirt and high heels. They even have the classic handcuffed-to-a-bed moment. But none of this amounts to anything. The action rarely leads to advancement of the story.

Most of the advancement of the plot and the resolution of the murder cover-up are accounted for by expository dialogue. This would be acceptable in a novel. But in a movie, why waste our time with the other unnecessary moments and clichés? Characters should drive plot, not the other way around.

I knew what I was getting into with this movie, so I promise I am not being unfair. I enjoy most romantic comedies, but this one was stale for the most part. The film’s advantage lies in the chemistry of its leads. And the only superlative this film has on the other films at this weekend’s box office would be “Most Attractive Couple.”

This film offered me little, and in turn I was able to invest nothing into it. I am not sure what movies owe us, if anything. But I always find myself asking, “What did this film bring to the table?” In short, The Bounty Hunter offers nothing we haven’t seen before.

P.S. I use the 4 star rating system, with a relative rating scale similar to that of Roger Ebert. If you are unfamiliar, consult his website or Wikipedia (g).

Oscar Night

2010-03-08T20:38:00.000-08:00

So, last night was Oscar night.

Not a big deal. Well, at least for people named George C. Scott, who called it a "goddamn meat parade." (Look, he said it not me: just quoting.)

(tried to find an image here, but I was afraid to Google "meat parade")

Now, I had to look up this term "meat parade." When I did, it made so much sense. I'll spare you the trouble of research, as it goes something like this: Picture your local town throwing a giant parade. It's theme: meat. (I don't have to tell you what kind of can of worms this opens for anyone with a ~~sick, twisted~~ sense of humor.) Anywho, who cares about this parade? Only those who attend, which would be those who have an invested interest in meat.

So, Mr. Scott is saying that the Oscars are meaningless except to those who are in attendance/nominated/win. This might be true. I mean, I always struggle with the validity of award shows (especially one that allows Forrest Gump to triumph over The Shawshank Redemption.) It's subjective and political. But, the Oscars are the biggest celebration of movies during the year. And those are something I can get behind.

Plus, when I first started enjoying movies and building my DVD collection, I made it my objection to own all the Best Picture nominees. (I currently lack 13 of the 82, which means I am 84% done.) I've committed them all to memory and occasionally spring this useless knowledge when I meet people (in an attempt to either scare them or impress them, usually the former) or when I am bored.

Anyway, this isn't irrelevant resume material I'm illustrating: rather my fondness for the mystique, history, and tradition of the Oscars.

This year, I was asked to submit my predictions for a few competitions and publications. I did well last year, correctly guessing 18 of the 24 categories (for 75%). This year, I did the exact same. 18 for 24. 75%. Which is not as good this year as it was last year, given the field.

The first "thing" for which I had to submit my predictions was the Crimson White (UA newspaper). I decided that for the sake of continuity, I would just stick by these submissions and wouldn't make any last second changes for other contests.

I did make some last second changes to my CW predictions, though. Most notably, two that wound up biting me. I had El Secreto de Sus Ojos correctly picked as the winner for Foreign Language Film. However, I caved in and changed to The White Ribbon, which had won at numerous other award shows. Also, I had Logorama picked for Animated Short Film. It was the only film from that category I had seen. But I changed my pick because I thought that there would be no way that the only film I saw from that category would win. Wrong again.

For a complete list of my predictions, click here.

I will not delve into the rationale behind these decisions. (I mean, I will if I am asked about specific categories, but to go through and do so for all 24 categories is quite a laborious task.) Some are coin-flips, some are educated guesses, and some are so obvious that anyone could have guessed them.

Instead, I just want to give three quick shout-outs:

First up, Up.

I know people get tired of Pixar winning, but it was deserved this year. And yay for Michael Giacchino winning Best Original Score. One of my all-time favorite movie scores. It's one of the reasons why Up is so darn terrific. (Btw, he also scores LOST, so there's another reason I enjoy his work.)

So glad for Jeff Bridges.

This was not some lifetime achievement moment. No doubt he gave a performance worthy of Best Actor. Crazy Heart is one of those films that I feel is one of the best of the year, yet no one has seen it. Do yourself a favor and see it ASAP.

P.S. Best Original Song winner "The Weary Kind" is an outstanding song.

Finally, Christoph Waltz.

What a masterful performance. Inglourious Basterds receives criticism for being "too talky." Now, I feel that criticism is unjustified. I could devote an entire post to why I believe that to be the case. Regardless, even if I grant that point, no one can doubt whether Christoph Waltz excelled in his role. He had some of the trickiest dialogue in the film, yet he delivered it masterfully.

There are some other things I would like to acknowledge, but I do not have the time. I could go on for days regarding different aspects of the Oscars. I'm certain I've failed to address certain topics or subjects that are of interest to you (other categories, the ceremony itself, the people, the fashion, etc.). If that is the case, or if you just want me to expand upon anything that was mentioned, let me know and I'd love to talk about it.

Feel free to discuss...

P.S. I apologize again for this terribly incomplete post. There is no way I can condense a few weeks worth of dialogue into one post.

P.P.S. I believe I fixed the comments setting, making it much easier to leave comments.

Gary Oldman: Man of Many Faces

2010-02-04T15:32:00.000-08:00

Gary Oldman is one of the most diverse actors I know. Other names that come to mind are Johnny Depp, Russell Crowe, Daniel Day-Lewis, and many others who are equally deserving.

But Gary Oldman has always had a soft spot in my heart as one of my favorite actors. I wish I had reasonable analysis, other than "I know what I know." But I don't.

Having said that, let me again say: he is probably the most diverse actor I've seen. Obviously, these kinds of thing are up for debate. But let me submit to you...

Sid Vicious

Rosencrantz

Lee Harvey Oswald

Drexl Spivey

Mason Verger

Dracula

Commissioner Gordon

Carnegie

Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg

Sirius Black

Shelly Runyon

Ludwig van Beethoven

Rev. Arthur Dimmesdale

Ivan Korshunov

Pontius Pilate

(and one of my favorites...)

Agent Stansfield

Now, before the accusations of man-crush start flying, I will address them upfront: they are absolutely true.

Seriously, though, this was my attempt to illustrate just how awesome of an actor Gary Oldman is. Diverse, loses himself in a role, gives 110%, etc. As a cinephile, it's a real joy to watch him transform himself on-screen.

Agree or disagree?

P.S. This says it all...

Top Films of the Past Decade (2000-2009)*

2010-01-31T15:25:00.000-08:00

* I have decided not to include films from 2009 yet. Also, I reserve the right to change this list at any point.

Well, here it is. My list of best/favorite films of the past decade. After going through every film released this past decade, my first cut consisted of 149 films. Today, I have it down to 20. (I kept animated and foreign films separate, in order to give some bonus picks at the end.)

I have so much to say about this list. First, if a title is not on here, I can only think of two reasons why I it's absent. 1) I haven't seen it yet. 2) It's not one of the tops films that I've seen during the past decade. People will always take offense to list like these, due to certain inclusions/omissions. That is why I hope to be able to discuss whatever issues you have with the list.

I will not rank the films. Many Top 10 lists don't. It can be an impossible task often times.

20 films is not too many, considering how many films have been since Jan. 1, 2000. It's hard enough to pick ten films for a given year, much less for an entire decade.

There are a bunch of other things I want to say or explain. But I've forgotten them. They will come to me later (as they always do).

So, without further ado, here are my top films of the past decade...

(in alphabetical order)

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)

One of the most interesting character studies I've ever seen. Pitt's performance as James gave me chills. So did Affleck's performance but for different reasons altogether (and not of the positive variety.)

I love the style of this film. Roger Deakins does a masterful job as cinematographer, as he usually does. Never before have bleak landscapes looked more dazzling. And if that doesn't do a good enough job setting the mood, the score sure does.

A different kind of western, but one of the best I've seen. The story never felt like it was dragging, despite a running time of 160 minutes. One of the most compelling accounts of America's legendary outlaw.

A Beautiful Mind (2001)

Films rarely have this kind of impact on me. A truly beautiful film, due to its heartbreaking-yet-touching story. My emotions rarely settle when I watch this film.

And one of the main reasons is Russell Crowe. His portrayal of John Nash is one of the best of the past decade. Thank goodness Jennifer Connelly was able to match him. Their scenes together sparkle with a magic and genuineness that is rarely matched on-screen.

James Horner has composed many scores that have been fairly criticized for their similarities. But not here. The score is simply outstanding. "Haunting" may seem too limited a word for it, but it is and that only seems appropriate given the story.

Capote (2005)

Anyone that has seen this film knows of the superb performance of Mr. Hoffman. But I submit Catherine Keener's turn as Harper Lee is the true gem of this movie. Keener's work is so good that I felt rather acquainted with H. Lee, even though she has made very few public appearances or interviews.

Much like Jesse James, Capote's visual style is absolutely fantastic. It's a beautiful film to watch. Capote's relationship with Perry Smith and Dick Hickock was truly unique, and this film does a great job of taking us into their world.

This is a film that left me feeling rather empty as soon as the credits started rolling. But about five minutes later, the emotions started flooding me. The theme of redemption in this story is quite profound.

Casino Royale (2006)

I almost feel like I have to justify this entry more than the others because it's a Bond film. Well, the Bond franchise is my favorite film franchise. I owned every single Bond movie on VHS. (Your welcome, Tim and Ducote family.) And this is my favorite Bond film.

So, favorite title of my favorite film franchise = selection to this list. I mean, this film has tremendous merits that would warrant inclusion on such a list as this. The acting is a great complement to the terrific script. Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), in addition to being my new favorite Bond girl, is one of the classic film characters from this decade.

And there are plenty of others. But I will not bother listing them given my obvious bias. What's the point?

Children of Men (2006)

What can I say? Of all the films on this list, not a single one impressed me more with its overall style, design, look, etc. Emmanuel Lubezki's cinematography is exceptional and absolutely unforgettable. The use of single-shot sequences in this movie remains one of my all-time favorite cinematic experiences.

And what a story. Fascinating. The tension holds you without allowing you a chance to breath. What will happen next? That's the kind of question this film instills in you, from the beginning and all the way to the screen fading to black.

I'm always a sucker for speculative fiction. Maybe that is why I responded so much to the story. Regardless, this is one film you need to see, if only for the visual experience. It is that good.

Gladiator (2000)

*This will not be the only Ridley Scott film on this list. I am not ashamed to say he is one of my favorite directors.

This film is great on many levels. The story (although filled with many historical inaccuracies), the editing of the action sequences, the film's stylish visuals, the score (see "Pirates of the Caribbean" for further proof), etc.

But what sets this film apart from so many others is the quality of the performances from top to bottom. I hated Joaquin Phoenix for years after I saw this film. I quickly realized it is because his work as Commodus is perfect. I've tried to stay away from that word so far, but it applies here. No doubt in my mind. This film is always one of the first to come to mind when I begin to think of my favorites of all-time.

Gosford Park (2001)

Whodunit's are my weak-spot. Even if they weren't, this film would on this list. If you have never seen a Robert Altman film, do yourself a favor and see one ASAP (preferably this one).

The ensemble cast and naturalistic nature of the film are typical of Altman's films. But they are also why this film is so compelling. The characters are so intertwined. The complexity just adds to the charm of the film.

And so does the camera work. I love the moving cameras, because it allows us to enter the story seamlessly. A kind-of holistic approach to filmmaking. It's an entertaining experience that I adore. Every time I see this movie, I never think about what I am missing out on by watching it. This is one of the few movies that effortlessly commands my undivided attention.

Gran Torino (2008)

I'm tempted not to write anything. In my mind, if you've seen this film, no explanation is needed.

First thing that stands out is the writing. Especially the dialogue. Yeah, it may seem like it's not taking itself seriously, but I don't get that feeling. Instead, I see it as proof that Walt Kowalski is in serious need of attitude adjustment (no matter how much he makes us chuckle).

And it is Clint Eastwood as Walt that is the highlight. I couldn't imagine the film with anyone else. He has not lost "it." Despite being nearly 80 years old, Mr. Eastwood continues to make misfits need a change of pants. It's not that he has become limited in his acting, due to roles he has continued to take. It's just that our perception is burned with the indelible image of a man who has perfected a particular craft.

In Bruges (2008)

*This may be the film that I could bring myself to drop from the list for another title. Begrudgingly so, but I could if I wanted.

Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson do a wonderful job with terrific material. This films features some of the wittiest and quickest dialogue I've experienced. When it hits overdrive, it can make "Gilmore Girls" seem like "Once Upon a Time in the West." (Not a shot at GG, if you knew my enjoyment of that show.) The story takes off rather unexpectedly, which is a real treat. Nothing contrived about it, though. The scenery of Bruges offers a nice contrast to the main characters and their backgrounds.

The film has some minor flaws, but like another title that is coming up, the positive aspects far outshine them.

Kingdom of Heaven - Director's Cut (2005)

"Wait, more Ridley Scott?" Before you freak out at the inclusion of this film, please make sure you understand the director's cut (DC) is what is being included. I guarantee you if I had never seen the DC, this film would not be listed.

Alas, I have seen it and it is included. Probably because the DC allows this film to reach its maximum potential. Pacing may be an issue early in the film, but the story is phenomenal. And like Scott's other film on this list, the cinematography and music are in a world of their own.

The movie's cast is one of my favorites. If it isn't enough that Jeremy Irons and Liam Neeson are wonderful in this film, then add in Eva Green, Brendan Gleeson, and David Thewlis for an extra dose of awesomeness. The cherry on top, though: Orlando Bloom in the best role of his career. (Yes, I hear your protests, Elizabethtown.)

The Lord of the Rings (2001-03)

Our generation's epic trilogy.

For my purposes, I'm considering the three films together as one title. They were filmed together. Also, if you've ever seen them, you know the first two movies end with the characters continuing on their quests. Maybe if they could stand alone, then I'd not consider them as a whole. But I've never watched the first two films and thought, "Well, I guess I call it a wrap on this story."

What is there for me to say regarding this cinematic landmark? Even if fantasy isn't your thing, you're bound to enjoy these films.

I mean, I haven't addressed this movie like the others. I tried to avoid doing so by explaining why I have them grouped as one. This is simply because I can't imagine a scenario where someone wouldn't include these films on a similar list.

Match Point (2005)

This movie is what I consider a "hidden gem." Despite being directed by Woody Allen, this film flies under radar. And for the life of me, I can't figure out why. Heck, WA himself has claimed that this film "arguably may be the best film that I've made."

This is another one of those movies that keeps you on the edge of your seat throughout. Not that you are rooting for any particular person--that's the beauty of this film: no one has my sympathy. Regardless, it's a thriller with terrific script and cast to match.

The drama is infused by the nuances of certain ordinary situations. Nothing is as it seems. The plot depends on these minor intricacies, though, in a way that beautifully illustrates it's opening monologue. Today, many films seem to lose their way. But do not include Match Point among their number.

Michael Clayton (2007)

Two films from 2007 have dominated recent "best films of the past decade" lists. Neither of them are on here. Why? Perhaps it is because Michael Clayton has taken their spot.

A film with flawless acting? Check

A script that is bordering on perfection? Sure thing

I've mentioned good acting and writing before in previous titles. But few of them can hold a candle to best film of 2007. (Yes, I just said it.) How Tom Wilkinson was snubbed by the Academy, I will never know. Perhaps it's best that way, to prevent my anger from turning into fury.

All I know is this: this film produces one of the few stand-up-and-cheer moments (not necessarily the ending, mind you) that leaves you feeling completely satisfied. My response to this film the first time I saw it was overwhelming.

Mystic River (2003)

Speaking of overwhelming reactions to films...

Yes, another film directed by Clint Eastwood is on here. Get over yourself.

This film is stunning. It's a good-looking film. Powerhouse performances all around. A story that grabs hold of you and never lets you go.

Heard this before?

Yes, because those are elements are good films. And there have been plenty of good films listed so far. I mean, I hope this isn't getting old. In fact, I hope it has the opposite effect. I want you to be thinking, "Man, there were films listed that were proclaimed as great for many of the same reasons. Mystic River is one of 'em? Then I definitely need to check it out." (By the way, you'd be correct in doing so. Mystic River is that good.)

Paris, je t'aime (2006)

For the record, I do not like this film because of all the preconceived romantic notions regarding Paris. From what I've been told by numerous people, such notions are false when compared to the reality of the city.

What I do like about this film, though, is the essence of the stories. Since it's a collection of 18 short films, there seems to be no continuity within this work. There are even a few of the shorts that are just downright bad. But in its entirety, there are too just many marvelous and satisfying moments to ignore.

And there is continuity amongst the 18 films. Just look at the title and the poster... Still can't figure it out? Then, maybe this film isn't for you. For the rest of us, though,--the ones that embrace it without prejudice or a lack of awareness--this film is about as delightful as they come.

Revolutionary Road (2008)

Definitely the film for which I will catch the most flak.

And definitely the film that would most closely resemble the antithesis to Paris, je t'aime.

This is one of the rare breed of films that can be both remarkable and troubling. Breathtaking and heartbreaking. I've never felt more conflicted in my emotions coming out of a movie.

This film has a wonderful style to it. Cinematography, art direction, costumes, it has it all. The music just adds to the tone of the film, helping to evoke an era that is far different from our current one.

Finally, I am convinced that had Heath Ledger not given one of the best screen performances of all-time, Michael Shannon would have easily won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for 2008.

Road to Perdition (2002)

I've said it before, and I've definitely echoed the sentiment so far with this list: cinematography and music are two of my favorite aspects of film. I know there is so many others, but these two have the biggest influence on shaping a film for me.

Well, this film is spectacular because of the two reasons listed above. Conrad Hall & Thomas Newman are two of the best at what they do (cinematographer and composer, respectively). What they do with this film is nothing short of arresting.

Throw in a story that deals with the consequences of violence better than 95% of other films that tackle the issue and the result is one of the best films of the past decade. I've heard that Tom Hanks is the modern day Jimmy Stewart--our contemporary "everyman." In Road to Perdition, Tom Hanks puts a new twist on this term and continues to shine as a brilliant actor.

Sideways (2004)

Probably one of the few films that transcends the screen upon which it is being shown. It's not that you are just watching two buddies hit up wine country. As most great films do, you are invited along for the ride.

One reason this film is just so darn good is simply this: as Roger Ebert said, "what happens during the seven days adds up to the best human comedy of the year -- comedy, because it is funny, and human, because it is surprisingly moving."

I could list all the reasons why (excellent writing, superb acting, etc.) this film is "surprisingly moving." But at its most fundamental level, it's about the human heart, or the human condition. This film shows every facet of this heart. With all its flaws and with all its strengths, for better or for worse, it is what drives us the most.

Shopgirl (2005)

Another "hidden gem."

I know this sounds like an excuse for me to take the easy way out, but this film echoes everything said about Sideways. It is all about human relationships and the driving force that is our hearts.

Steve Martin wrote the screenplay, based on his novella of the same name. And what he writes shows tremendous insight into the human condition. That is why this film has its moments that break your heart, regardless of how "sad" they might or might not appear.

This is the type of film that allows you plenty of opportunities to reflect upon the love that you have for yourself and others. If you were only able to see one film from this list, this movie might be the one.

Traffic (2000)

(We've finally made it.)

This is the type of film that interweaves several stories into one cohesive unit: one that not only grabs your attention but also shakes you to the core. But despite such a complex story, it is told with great flair and vision.

Another ensemble cast that absolutely knocks a wonderful script out of the park. With so much emotion, this film feels like a firecracker waiting to go off.

I love the visual style of the film. The graininess reflected the mood of the film very well, as the lives of these characters resemble anything but a clear and smooth path. It's a breath of fresh air when characters and plot are not shaped by the "cookie-cutter" approach. This film succeeds by giving us characters with plenty of jagged edges.

Runners-Up (in no particular order)

In the Valley of Elah
25th Hour
Good Night, and Good Luck
The Contender
The Prestige
United 93
Munich
The Fountain
Pooh's Heffalump Movie
The Dark Knight
Appaloosa

***Please, I'm very interested in your feedback, and I would love to hear/read your comments, thoughts, etc. Positive or negative, the only thing I enjoy more than movies is participating in dialogue about movies.

P.S. Is this list really all that bad?

P.P.S. Bonus selections (top animated film and top foreign films) will be added tomorrow.

My Apologies (Part Deux)

2010-01-31T13:51:00.000-08:00

I suck at blogging. I really do.

It's been 30 days since my last post. This is unacceptable. (For you and me.)

But I've spent the last 30 days working up to my next post (should be up later this evening). It's taken me 30 days to go through every film released from 2000-20009.

Why would I go through all of these films? Because I've just compiled my list of top films of the past decade.

Why did this take 30 days? One part procrastination, one part pouring over a list of every full-length film released over the past decade, one part forgetfulness, and one part making sure my next post (which has always been planned as this list) was of great quality. I guess thinking it had to be absolutely perfect unnecessarily slowed this process.

I am a perfectionist. I want to make sure everything I do is of the highest quality. But not to the point where progress is stalled. Happened with this blog, happens with essays/papers, happen with other things. That's just me.

But these things will never be perfect. Just gotta get a grip on that fact. So, I apologize to all seven of you who read this thing. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't giving you anything less than my best effort on this latest list.

I mean, I feel great about this upcoming list. I'm prepared to defend any selections/omissions. (I am working on publishing this list as we speak: just takes some time to get it all down.)

Anyway, this whole 30-days-between-each-post won't be an issue going forward. I promise...

My DVD Christmas

2010-01-01T12:55:00.000-08:00

If there is one word that describes my Christmas "haul" this year, that word is "DVD." I'm almost embarrassed to list them all, but know that every single one was purchased when it was on a huge discount. That's about the only way I'll buy them nowadays. They were all assembled through about 5 different methods, some of which included some money I received as a gift through a class-action settlement of which my uncle was a part.

Without further ado (and without your judgmental comments/thoughts), here they are:

1. Six Feet Under: The Complete Series

2. Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut

3. Watchmen: The Ultimate Cut

4. Up

5. Inglourious Basterds

6. 101 Dalmatians

7. Robin Hood

8. The Sword in the Stone

9. Rope

10. Strangers on a Train

11. An American in Paris

12. The Apartment

13. Gigi

14. Body of Lies

15. In Bruges

16. Let the Right One In

17. Syriana

18. Rachel Getting Married

19. Revolutionary Road

20. Road to Perdition

21. Sideways

22. The Wrestler

Ok, go ahead and judge me. Whether it be for the sheer number of titles or the titles themselves. It seems Revolutionary Road always gets me in the most trouble...

My Apologies

2009-12-23T16:01:00.000-08:00

I'll be brief:

First, my apologies for not posting in quite some time. I have been swamped with the usual holiday festivities.

I've seen three remarkable films in the past week. Invictus, Avatar, and The Princess and the Frog are three films I highly recommend. Since this is a film blog, I want to discuss them. But I want to do them justice. So, sometime in the upcoming days, I'll give some run-throughs of all three films. (I've decided to skip formal reviews for these, because there are an abundance of them out there. But I guarantee you'll know just how much I enjoyed these films.)

I look forward to the upcoming days, and I hope you all have a wonderful Christmas!

P.S. Shout-out to Ghetto Christmas. Thank you all for giving me what I most look forward to during the holidays!

P.P.S. I recently found out they have remade "The Karate Kid." This saddens me. Why does this film need to be remade!? It's not unaccessible to the modern audience. Heck, although the original was released in 1984, I enjoyed it growing up in the 90s.

Plus, the talent behind it is pretty underwhelming. Harald Zwart as director? Thanks for leaving us with such other classics as Agent Cody Banks and One Night at McCool's. Jackie Chan cannot replace Pat Morita... but no one can. And Jaden Smith... well, I won't claim nepotism, but surely they can get someone better. I was left unimpressed after his performance in The Day the Earth Stood Still. Very unimpressed. These remakes have got to stop.

Know what? I'll just let Peter Finch describe how I am feeling. He does it best, after all...

One of My All-Time Favorite Scenes

You with me?

Reexamining the 1980s

2009-12-17T17:03:00.000-08:00

I know the 80s was a hit-or-miss decade for movies. And I know the winners of the Best Picture Oscar are rarely the best films from their respective years.

But... seriously!? This is the best that decade can do!?

See for yourself:

1980 - Ordinary People

1981 - Chariots of Fire

1982 - Gandhi

1983 - Terms of Endearment

1984 - Amadeus

1985 - Out of Africa

1986 - Platoon

1987 - The Last Emperor

1988 - Rain Man

1989 - Driving Miss Daisy

Now, I want to give my both my favorite film and what I consider the best film for each year, according to my own personal enjoyment of them (with no regard to any other implications/expectations).

There can be a difference, because I can see the difference between "favorite" and "best." One might argue the great films would/should have the power to make themselves my favorites, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way for me. I'm gonna consider these "favorites" as the ones I could watch over and over and over and never tire of 'em. Also, some of the best films I've ever seen I've only see once, or I would be unable to watch them five times in a row.

Anyway, that's a whole other argument. Feel free to disagree, but let's start, shall we?

(Runners-up are in parentheses)

1980

Best Film: Raging Bull (Ordinary People)

Favorite Film: The Blues Brothers (Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back)

1981

Best Film: Chariots of Fire (On Golden Pond)

Favorite Film: Raiders of the Lost Ark (For Your Eyes Only)

1982

Best Film: Blade Runner (Gandhi)

Favorite Film: The World According to Garp (E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial)

1983

Best Film: The Big Chill & Terms of Endearment

Favorite Film: The Big Chill & Terms of Endearment (Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi)

1984

Best Film: Amadeus (The Killing Fields)

Favorite Film: This Is Spinal Tap (Once Upon a Time in America)

1985

Best Film: Kiss of the Spider Woman (Ran)

Favorite Film: Clue (Kiss of the Spider Woman)

1986

Best Film: The Mission (Hannah and Her Sisters & Platoon)

Favorite Film: The Great Mouse Detective (Hoosiers)

1987

Best Film: Wall Street (Full Metal Jacket)

Favorite Film: The Brave Little Toaster & Dirty Dancing (The Untouchables)

1988

Best Film: Mississippi Burning (Rain Man)

Favorite Film: Die Hard (Who Framed Roger Rabbit)

1989

Best Film: Dead Poets Society (Born on the Fourth of July)

Favorite Film: When Harry Met Sally... (Dead Poets Society & Lean on Me)

I am sure I have offended someone out there. So be it.

***I apologize for not expanding upon each film, but I could fill up 50 pages with my thoughts and feeling toward them all. I'd be happy to address anything or any questions in the comments section (or feel free to leave something as simple as a "hello," letting me know you've stopped by).