A million gazillion reviews

The Squid and the Whale
(5 stars out of five)
An amazing, beautiful film. Writer/director Noah Baumbach (co-writer of The Life Aquatic) has crafted one of the best films of the year. Shot with a grainy, handheld camera (on either 16mm or video, I can't tell for sure), the film has a feeling of urgency, moving like a locomotive from start to finish. With a runtime of only 80 minutes, Baumbach has managed to create fully realized characters, the like of which we hardly see in movies anymore. The entire cast is stellar, the writing is observant and fearless, and you get the overwhelming feeling, during the film, that you're watching something really special. A great achievement, and a huge contender for the Best Original Screenplay category this year. Winner of the Director's Award (Dramatic) and the Waldo Salt Screenwriting Award at the Sundance Film Festival.

Munich
(4 stars out of five)
The opening sequence is wonderfully shot and edited. The entire film is exceptionally well-made. The movie raises some great questions, and never ceases to be entertaining. Yet, something is missing from Steven Spielberg's latest film. It's a revenge drama, and it never is anything less than compelling, but it somehow still holds us at arm's length in terms of how close we're allowed to get to the emotional core of the characters. The ending is also a mess. It's not terrible by any means, but the film is further evidence that Spielberg will never make a better film than Schindler's List.

King Kong
(4 ½ stars out of five)
Peter Jackson's first film since completing the Lord of the Rings trilogy is just about as good as a fantasy film can get. The original Kong was the film that inspired Jackson to be a filmmaker, and so it's no surprise that here, his loving hand can be felt on every frame of film. The film shares the epic feeling of the Rings films, and it really feels like the kind of "event movie" that they hardly make anymore. Jackson is mostly successful in making Kong seem human and emotional, and his cast is uniformly excellent, particularly Jack Black, who sinks his teeth into his first largely dramatic role and comes out on top in the end. It's a rollicking, wonderful ride.

Syriana
(5 stars out of five)
Hands down one of the best films of the year. Immensely entertaining and amazingly complex, I think Roger Ebert described the film best when he said: "The movie's plot is so complex we're not really supposed to follow it, we're supposed to be surrounded by it." That's the perfect way of explaining the feeling one gets while watching the film. Even though the audience is almost guaranteed to be confused at least a few times while watching the movie, never once is it a frustrating confusion. The movie - which follows the complexities of the oil business and the countries involved in it - surrounds the audience in a warm, enveloping atmosphere of plot and character, and presents it in such an interesting way, that we grab onto the things we understand, leave behind for the moment the things we don't and put faith in the filmmakers that everything will add up in the end. It's a testament to writer/director Stephen Gaghan (writer of Traffic) that, not only do we understand any of it at all, but we're fascinated by it, and even more importantly, that we're emotionally involved with the characters. An incredible motion picture. I would even go so far as to call it a masterpiece.

Bee Season
(3 stars out of five)
Starts out well enough, but soon devolves into a disappointing mess. Subplots go nowhere, and the most interesting parts of the film aren't explored enough. The individual family storylines (the daughter's spelling bee competitions; the son's spiritual exploration) are handled well enough, but directors David Siegel and Scott McGehee (the wonderful The Deep End) can't quite find a way to merge them together without it becoming phony, or - at its worst - silly. The ending is quite fitting and beautiful, however.

Walk The Line
(5 stars out of five)
Fun, entertaining, and powerful. It follows the conventions that most biopics have, but breaks free of some of them with some smart writing and clever scene construction. Joaquin Phoenix is Johnny Cash. His transformation into the legendary singer is unbelievable. James Mangold (Girl, Interrupted) directs the film in a surprisingly subtle way, letting the actors and the story do the work, and the result is a film that feels as if it doesn't quite know the magnitude of the person it is chronicling... but in a good way.

Shopgirl
(3 stars out of five)
Having not read Steve Martin's original novella, of which this film is based, and from reading other reviews, which observe that the movie is apparently a very faithful adaptation of the book, I must say that the main problem with the film lies in the flaws of the book itself. The movie is made competently enough: Claire Danes is wonderful, Steve Martin is quite good, and Jason Schwartzman is perfectly cast, and there are some wonderful lines and dialogue sequences. The problem with the film is a structural one. The main plot of the film consists of Danes' character choosing between Martin's character and Schwartzman's. The problem is, after a few early scenes with Schwartzman, we rarely see him again for the rest of the film. When she finally makes her choice at the end, we know she's happy, but how are we, as an audience, supposed to make up our minds when we don't have enough character substance to make a choice? We can take for granted that she makes the right choice in the end, but to be denied the opportunity to decide for ourselves and compare her choice with ours, takes away much of the power that the film could have had.

Proof
(4 ½ stars out of five)
A really wonderful little film from John Madden (Shakespeare In Love). A small, subtle character study that takes its time with its characters and treats the audience like adults. Jake Gyllenhaal and Gwyneth Paltrow are well-cast and the movie is beautifully shot.

Rent
(4 ½ stars out of five)
One of the best stage-to-screen adaptations in recent memory. It could have failed miserably: With Chris Columbus (Home Alone) as director, and a huge legacy to live up to, it was almost destined to go down in flames. But, fortunately, we have this film. The movie feels big and lively and important (as it should), with dozens of camera moves and sweeping crane shots. It really opens up the film from its stage production. The most welcome success of the film, coming from someone who's usually not a fan of musicals? Things don't feel forced, which I feel is the problem with most movie musicals. Everything just feels... right. That's the best way I can explain it. How does a movie musical work? If they open their mouths and sing, and it feels like they're supposed to.

Paradise Now
(4 stars out of five)
A brave film that gives a face to the problems in Palestine, as we follow two friends about to become suicide bombers in Tel Aviv. A solid, well-crafted film and the front-runner for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar.

Jarhead
(4 stars out of five)
--The big question that people usually ask themselves when they’re about to view a war film is a logical one: Which side will they (the filmmakers) be on? Early on in this film, a soldier says “Fuck politics. We’re here. That’s all that matters”. There’s the answer to your question. Sam Mendes’ (American Beauty) new film Jarhead does not take an outright stance on politics, Iraq, or war in general. In most cases, that would seem to be a strange, and – especially in these times – irresponsible move. However, it quickly becomes apparent that the film is much like Full Metal Jacket: it is a scathing attack on the American military.
From the first scene of the film, we are instantly aware of the film’s stance. The main character (exquisitely played by Jake Gyllenhaal) is getting punched in the face by his drill instructor, and we hear his voice-over narration on the soundtrack: “It was about this time that I realized that joining the Marines was a mistake”. In this film, we have a rare thing in American movies: a soldier that regrets his choice to enlist. His story continues as he’s trained physically and mentally (i.e., brainwashed) into being a “killing machine” along with his fellow soldiers. There’s only one problem: they’re shipped to the desert, but the war hasn’t started yet. They proceed to go insane as their urge to kill goes unquenched in the uninhabited desert. It’s quite an original story to see on film: a war film with almost no violence. In fact, the only person that dies onscreen in the entire film is a Marine that dies during boot camp in a training exercise where live rounds are fired.
Sam Mendes continues to be a director with a superb sense of pacing, and his skill goes a long way in making this film successful. In making a film about boredom, it’s exceptionally hard to keep it fresh and entertaining. While he doesn’t always succeed, Mendes keeps things moving with a wonderful selection of songs on the soundtrack, and Thomas Newman’s surprisingly upbeat score.
Unfortunately, the film suffers from an overwhelming feeling of detachment. We never really connect with any of the characters, and whether it was intentional or not, it keeps the film from being as involving as it could be. Regardless of the shortcomings, it’s still a remarkably accomplished and timely piece.

Capote
(5 stars out of five)
--An outstanding film. The accolades go out to everyone: Philip Seymour Hoffman is almost unrecognizable in the title role, and he's aided by wonderful supporting performances from Katherine Keener, Chris Cooper, and especially Clifton Collins Jr. The real surprise here is that the movie has not only a first-time director (Bennett Miller) but also a first-time writer (Dan Futterman), and it succeeds as if it were a film made by veterans! The real triumph of the film is in the construction of the story, in relation to the characters. You don't feel as if you're being forced into feeling certain emotions, and at the end of the film, it's up to you to decide just how much you like Truman Capote as a person, if at all. A stellar picture, every step of the way.

The Weather Man
(3 stars out of five)
--Wow, this movie really wants to be the new American Beauty... It tries to mix humor and despair in equal parts, with limited success. In American Beauty, the humor seemed to evolve naturally from the drama around it. Here, it just seems manufactured and forced. The movie is at its best when it grabs hold of a melancholy tone and sticks with it; there's an extended sequence near the end of the movie, in which director Gore Verbinski (the director of The Ring and Pirates of the Caribbean, here in his first "serious" film) does just that, and the attention to detail in the sequence is almost startling. It's a shame that the rest of the film that surrounds this sequence is so poor.

North Country
(4 stars out of five)
-- (review deleted accidentally)

Good Night, and Good Luck.
(4 ½ stars out of five)
--Who would have ever thought, years ago, that we'd be sitting here, talking about a great film directed by George Clooney, of all people? But that's just the case. Clooney, in his second feature, has crafted a picture that has a wonderful sense of tone and pacing - the best I've seen in years. The film - shot by Paul Thomas Anderson's cameraman, Robert Elswit - has a wonderful sense of movement and rhythm, further enhanced by the editing of Stephen Mirrione (the Oscar-winning editor of Traffic). It should also be mentioned that for a film with such serious subject matter, the movie is actually quite humorous and even light in many moments. The screenplay, written by Clooney and Grant Heslov, is full of great lines and memorable scenes. David Strathairn is truly amazing in the lead role, and if the buzz is proven right and he's nominated, it will be well deserved. One of the best movies of the year.

A History of Violence
(4 ½ stars out of five)
--One of the best films of the year. Director David Cronenberg takes the tired genre of "psychological thriller" and turns it on its ear, creating a nicely textured, subtle drama with moments of shocking violence. Now, I must tell you, I'm not a person that usually "jumps" at a sudden shock or scare in a movie. Well, this movie caused me to do so. Twice. Cronenberg draws out his silences so long that when the violent act does occur, it comes literally out of nowhere. The violence in the film is treated almost like an ugly poetry, with very little cutting during the scenes of brutality, showing the killing in all its maliciousnesss. Cronenberg also uses a nice technique of placing the sound over the action a split second before you see it onscreen, keeping you one step behind of everything that's happening. A definite Best Director contender here: from the moment the movie starts, you truly feel as if you are in the hands of a powerful storyteller. No matter how great everything else in the movie is - and there are great things, to be sure - this movie is Cronenberg's, and you can sense it every step of the way. Finally, the fall movie season has begun...

4 Reviews

Elizabethtown
(2 stars out of five)
-- Oh, Cameron Crowe..... Cameron, Cameron, Cameron... What have you done?!
A complete mess in every sense of the word, Elizabethtown is a film in search of a purpose. While nice little moments do exist, there's nothing within the story to hold them together. Characters come into and out of the story with no real development, and no real reason for them being there. A fine cast is wasted, given hardly anything to do in their supporting roles. The movie also has a problem with sudden, dramatic changes in tone. The beginning of the film sets a nice, melancholy, darkly-comic feel to the picture, and then ruins it when Crowe decides he wants the movie to be an out-and-out comedy. The end of the film, however, I must say, is wonderful. The ending is so terrific, that it almost feels as if Crowe came up with it first, and then created everything else around it. It's a pity the ending (which involves the main character on a sort of "musical road trip" - different songs accompany him on his cross-country journey home) couldn't have been in a better film. Kirsten Dunst is quite good in her role, and Orlando Bloom is serviceable (although the limits of his acting ability are seen several times), but the two simply don't have any chemistry together, unfortunately. And finally, the thing we always look forward to in a Cameron Crowe film: the writing. Here he writes a couple great lines, but most of the film just feels false and forced. Granted, lots of the problem comes from Crowe's script, which flails around all over the place, but some of it also comes from Bloom. He just can't sell some of the lines he's given. Some of the classic Crowe lines ("I gave her my heart, and she gave me a pen"..."You complete me") wouldn't have had a chance in hell of working if there weren't great actors saying them. It's a frustrating film. There are great little moments, and then Crowe feels the need to go bigger and broader with his humor. Huge disappointment.


Everything Is Illuminated
(2 ½ stars out of five)
--Actor Liev Schreiber (the Scream series) tries his hand at directing. Unfortunately, his characters are too vague to make a connection with the audience. It's beautifully shot, and Schreiber has a director's eye for detail, but the film starts off with an insanely goofy, almost cartoonish tone, and Schreiber asks us about a quarter of the way through the picture to make a sudden tone change to the dramatic. We don't care enough about any of the characters to feel the emotions he wants us to feel, and it doesn't help that a character that we hardly know narrates the film. Schreiber still shows lots of promise, however: the acting is very good, and the camerawork feels fresh and exciting.


Thumbsucker
(3 stars out of five)
--Another one of those films that doesn't develop its supporting characters enough. Lou Taylor Pucci gives an amazing performance as the title character, a 17-year-old who still has a problem with...yeah, you guessed it. The film follows him as he is diagnosed with ADHD, given medication to combat the disorder, and his eventual triumph and downfall because of it. The emotional center to all of this, however, is his relationshipp with his parents. The mother, the more important figure in his life, is more fleshed out...the father remains something of an enigma. First-time director Mike Mills has no problem with throwing in several visually intensive dream sequences, but he doesn't usually have his characters talking about much of anything involving themselves. But the camerawork is great (beautifully filmed in wide 2.35:1), the acting universally spot-on, and Pucci's performance is worth the price of admission alone. An average film with flourishes of greatness sprinkled in.


Oliver Twist
(4 ½ stars out of five)
--Roman Polanski's 2005 version of the classic tale is a wonderful film. Before seeing this, I had never before read the story of Oliver Twist, nor had I seen any of the other film versions. I have since seen the classic David Lean film, and I must say that this movie rivals it, without a doubt. The film is just over two hours long, but it feels like an epic tale, although, for some reason, the film itself doesn't feel overlong at all. Polanski takes time with his characters, and immerses the audience in the strange world in which the story takes place. A great film. It accomplishes something which I've always felt is an extremely hard thing to pull off: it makes you feel as if you've actually gone on a journey with the character, as opposed to just watching them make that journey.

No Direction Home: Bob Dylan
(5 stars out of five)
--An incredible examination of the legendary singer. Martin Scorsese crafts an exhilarating 3 ½ hour film from hours of never-before-seen footage and interviews, and succeeds in doing the seemingly impossible: to present the sometimes-reclusive Dylan as honestly and truthfully as possible, while also placing the man, and his impact upon the world, within the context of his era. The film ends abruptly, but Scorsese was only given license (and the footage) to tell the story up until 1966, so hopefully someday we will get another film that chronicles more of his life.

Corpse Bride
(3 ½ stars out of five)
--I'll readily admit that these sort of films are not usually my cup of tea (animated films with musical numbers), but this is one of the better of the bunch. Of course everyone remembers The Nightmare Before Christmas, the other Tim Burton stop-motion animated feature, but the thing that separates this film from that one is the sheer beauty of the animation. It is, without a doubt, a magnificent looking film - the best stop-motion animation ever done. Burton has created a beautiful Gothic world here, and the story is actually quite poetic, recalling the touching, almost mythic quality of Edward Scissorhands. In my opinion, however, the film is held back by the goofy musical numbers that really feel out of place with the rest of the picture. You have Burton's darkly funny sense of humor (eyeballs hanging out of sockets, limbs falling off, talking maggots) contrasted against the overly-cute, Disney-like musical numbers. It's something that didn't work for The Nightmare Before Christmas, and it certainly doesn't work here. I understand why they're there, of course; this is animation, and so it has to be marketed as a kid's movie. I would have much preferred that Burton return to the days when being dark and twisted meant pushing the limits.

November
(4 stars out of five)
--I still don't quite understand what was going on in this movie, but that's a feeling that I really don't mind having, and in the case of this movie, it's a completely satisfying one. It only lasts 73 minutes, but it feels longer, because it moves in a steady, unhurried pace. It feels just long enough, and it's a rare case in which I feel that an extremely short running time was justified.
The movie is confusing as hell, but it's also bold in how confusing it actually allows itself to be. The audience is literally lost as to what's going on until the last few minutes, and even then it's unclear as to what is actually going on - in a literal sense, at least. Philosophically, we are given many clues, and we are actually left with several different possibilities for us to consider at the end. I'm being purposely vague here; if I described anything beyond the basic opening plot, it would give away everything. To tell you the truth, I don't really know if I even could explain it to you... Needless to say, it's deftly executed, well acted, and is sure to leave you with a hell of a brain teaser long after you've seen it.

Saraband
(5 stars out of five)
--An enormously affecting film. The fact that this is also Ingmar Bergman's final film makes it all the more emotional. Bergman, now 87 years old, flirted with the idea of retirement back in 1982, when, with the release of Fanny and Alexander, he declared it would be his last film. Now, over two decades later, Bergman has finally given us his last film. It is a startling achievement. Bergman examines - as he has in his past films - life, death, and love. But Bergman's last opus focuses on something that hasn't always been examined in his films: himself. This is a film about the ties between parents and children, the process of aging, and the terrible feeling of long lost love. Bergman dedicates the film to his wife, who died years ago: The film opens with a simple "To Ingrid", and the title card. Simplicity is something that's always been a part of Bergman's work, a sort of deceptive simplicity. I kept thinking, as I watched the film, as I watched this great filmmaker's final film... what would be the last shot? What would be the last image he would choose...the last shot that he would ever commit to film? It seems fitting that the last image Bergman would choose to film would be of a face, in close-up, looking into the camera. It is that almost oblique thing, the human face, that Bergman has devoted his life to studying, in close-up, in his attempt to go beyond it into something more beautiful, complex, and truthful than mere words could ever express. He is the world's greatest living director, and this is a beautiful swan song...

Lord of War
(4 stars out of five)
--Right from the opening sequence of this film (an inspired montage, following a single bullet as it is created, packaged, sold, and finally, shot into the head of a young man -- all set to Buffalo Springfield's classic anti-war song "For What It's Worth"), you know it means business. It does not shy away from its opinions and messages. I assure you: don't be scared away by the awful trailers for the film... the marketing people obviously had no idea how to market this movie, and as a last-ditch effort, made it appear to be an action film. It couldn't be more the opposite. It leaves hardly anyone unscathed in its open disgust of war and violence: entire countries are taken to task, and a nicely-written text at the end of the film informs the viewer that the biggest weapons dealers in the world are also the permanent members of the UN... the film is saying, in so many words, that the U.S. and other countries are no different than the despicable arms dealer that Nicolas Cage plays in the film. The movie's message is quite dark, but true: things go round and round, people will die, the soldiers will get younger, and as long as money is involved, nothing will change. It's quite unsettling, but the film has a sense of humor that keeps things going. Andrew Niccol (writer of The Truman Show) writes and directs the film with wit and intelligence, and the cast is first-rate. It's one of those films where the message of the picture - and how clearly and effectively the filmmakers get that message across - is almost more important than the film itself. We don't always get the feeling that the movie has a firm hold on its story, but the message of the film comes across as clear as day... with startling effect.

Junebug
(4 stars out of five)
--For the first hour of this film, we are watching one of the best films of the year. Clear, memorable characterizations, great dialogue, sure-footed direction... we feel like we are in the hands of great storytellers. Then, about 3/4 of the way through, the film loses its momentum, and stops almost completely in its tracks. It feels like a totally different movie. It's a big misstep, but what came before it is so good, it can almost be forgiven. The actors are uniformly great, but Amy Adams particularly stands out in her wide-eyed, energetic performance which practically steals the show. In fact, the biggest reason why the last fourth of the film suffers is because she's offscreen. It may not be apparent at first, but a big reason for Junebug's success is Adams.
Overall, a promising first feature for director Phil Morrison. Winner of a Special Jury Prize for Acting (Amy Adams) at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival.

Mysterious Skin
(3 stars out of five)
--A frustratingly inconsistent film. Starts out beautifully, but something doesn't feel quite right, and it's apparent early on that director Gregg Araki (The Doom Generation), in his first "serious" film, doesn't have the emotional maturity as a director to pull it off. The best thing about the picture is the acting: Joseph Gordon-Levitt tackles the material head-on, completely becoming his character in every word and mannerism. Just as good is newcomer Brady Corbet, who plays the second lead character. These actors have great moments to shine in the film, but ultimately the movie just feels muddled and unsure of itself. It hits home the graphic points with great power, but Araki isn't quite sure yet how to handle the more fragile, quietly emotional sequences. They feel hamfisted, and, at their worst, cartoony. I thought it was a long shot, but I was hopeful that Araki might be able to turn himself around with the great material he was given. Oh well... It's still a must-see, just for Gordon-Levitt's performance.

Grizzly Man
(4 ½ stars out of five)
--A constantly entertaining and intriguing film. Filmmaker Werner Herzog uses found footage to tell the story of Timothy Treadwell, a man who lived among the bears in Alaska for many years, only to be killed by one of them in 2003. What's amazing about the film is how many beautifully sad moments Treadwell was able to capture over the years: a bumble bee, dead on a flower, somehow died as it was doing its work; a baby bear, killed and eaten by his mother, because a summer drought has stopped the salmon run... Through all of this, Treadwell is openly and honestly emotional at what he is seeing: mourning the death of a young fox killed by wolves, or calling upon whatever God may be up there to make a heavy rain so the bears will stop eating their young. It's also amazing to see Treadwell at work: he's making a film, and so he does multiple takes of some scenes, and we see the contrast between who he is in his film and who he is in reality. Although some of Herzog's interview scenes seem suspiciously staged and scripted, the Treadwell footage is what makes this film what it is, and he is able to make us understand, even in some small way, why this man would live the way he did. Winner of the Alfred P. Sloan Feature Film Prize at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival.

Song of the moment:
Against Me - "Sink, Florida, Sink" (MP3, 3 MB)

The Exorcism of Emily Rose
(1 star out of five)
--Terrible, terrible movie... A film that tries to mix two wildly different genres (courtroom drama, horror film) and ends up with painfully unsuccessful results. The people who came to the film expecting horror will instead find themselves watching a human drama, and the people who came to see this drama will find its impact shattered by way too many unnecessary "scare" scenes. Fine actors like Tom Wilkinson and Laura Linney should know better.

Song of the moment:
Against Me - "Cavalier Eternal" (MP3, 3 MB)

(Big thanks go to Mike for introducing me to this band...)

The Constant Gardener
(4 stars out of five)
--A strange bird, this one is... Of its 130 minute runtime, the first hour or so is almost completely just a setup for the last hour. Strangely, even though this first hour lags at times, becoming repetitive and even bordering on boring, the movie still manages to create a startling impact in the last half. Patient audiences may end up being very happy they stuck with it. The violent aspects of the story are not shied away from, and this can almost definitely be attributed to the brutal force of Fernando Meirelles' (City of God) direction. One of those films you admire more than enjoy.

Murderball
(5 stars out of five)
--There's an old quote from the director Luis Bunuel, in which he says that "The thing that would make me angriest about dying, would be that I would be unable to read tomorrow's newspaper." That's the kind of sentiment that runs throughout this amazing, amazing film. If a man is able to communicate, create, and live his life, then why on earth would he not want to read tomorrow's newspaper?
This is an incredible motion picture. Everything seems to click, everything adds up, and we are treated to one of the best examinations of people overcoming physical and emotional challenges that I've ever seen. My original review of this was just accidentally erased, but I guess this is the sort of film that deserves a shorter review anyway. This is a movie that needs to be discovered and experienced. Highly, highly recommended.
Winner of the Audience Award for Best Documentary Feature at the Sundance Film Festival.

The 40-Year-Old Virgin
(4 stars out of five)
--I've waited a long, long time... and finally, it's happened: Judd Apatow has made his feature-film directing debut. Apatow's television directing goes back to The Larry Sanders Show, and he was one of the main creative forces behind Freaks and Geeks (along with, of course, the show's creator, Paul Feig). The result? Exactly the kind of movie I was hoping Apatow would turn out.
For all its vulgarity and raunchiness, the movie is actually very bold in its message that it gives in the end: At first, the main character's virginity is the butt of the joke, but eventually, the fact that he's a virgin makes him the best person of the bunch, so to speak. Because he hasn't had his emotional outlook clouded by sex, he's able to see much more clearly when Ms. Right does come along. This is a movie that starts out being just what you think it is, and then sneaks in some amazingly insightful things about the overemphasis of sex in relationships and about the lack of emotion in today's intimacy. Oh, but don't worry - it's still pretty damn funny. There's hardly a minute that goes by in which you're not chuckling at something. An exceptional group of actors - perfectly cast, by the way (including Freaks and Geeks' Seth Rogen(!) and Oscar-nominee Catherine Keener) - also helps quite a bit. Sure, some jokes fall flat, but not to the extent of Wedding Crashers.
People might notice that I've given this movie the same rating as Wedding Crashers... So which one is better? Well, they really are (despite what you might read) two quite different movies. I definitely laughed harder during Wedding Crashers, but the actual better movie of the two is this one. The other film relies on the stars' chemistry and a breakneck pace to propel the movie through its rough spots, and most of the laughs come from that aforementioned chemistry and some of the wacky situations that take place. In this one, most of the laughs come from the dialogue, rather than the situations the characters are in. The best way to explain it is, while both movies are quite funny, Wedding Crashers goes the route of piling on joke after joke, throwing them relentlessly at the audience, hoping that most of them will connect... which they fortunately do. The 40-Year-Old Virgin takes its time with its jokes, weaves them more cohesively into the storyline, and is overall a highly fine-tuned film, with every little beat and pause worked out to be just long enough. I encourage everyone to read this article, which is a great little examination of the test-screening process that the film went through. While I'm not usually a huge fun of this, it's obvious that Apatow's close examination of the movie, and the subsequent fine-tuning of the film using that information, really paid off.
A fine feature debut by Apatow. Hopefully we see much, much more from him. (Oh, and just one more thing: Freaks and Geeks fans should keep their eyes open for several cameos from regulars on that show).


Red-Eye
(3 stars out of five)
-- Wes Craven's best film since the original Scream has movie clichés galore, an overlong feeling despite being only 85 minutes, and characters that are paper-thin, but still manages to create a considerable amount of suspense. The opening 10 minutes or so feel awkwardly pedestrian, as if Craven was out to lunch during the shooting of it. Everything feels nice and tense, though, once the plot thickens. Craven usually fares best with big set pieces, but here he proves he can do just as well with mining suspense out of dialogue and chemistry (the biggest jump in the movie occurs during one of these scenes, and it's brilliant). He does get the chance to do a couple of the aforementioned setpieces, however, and he does his usual stellar job with them. It sort of rambles in the beginning, and the ending is nothing new, but this film succeeds in what it tries to do - nothing more, nothing less.

Broken Flowers
(5 stars out of five)
--A pitch-perfect examination of loneliness, which also happens to be really funny and really touching all at once. Bill Murray gives a great, quiet performance...possibly his best yet. Jim Jarmusch's direction creates a slow and rhythmic pace that quickly becomes almost hypnotic. You really feel as though you've taken a journey with this character by the end, and that's a rare thing for a film. Winner of the Grand Prix (second place) at the Cannes Film Festival.

Reviews

6 new reviews, with star ratings and "summary"-like reviews

Four Brothers
(3 ½ stars out of five)
--Solid action picture. Arguably Singleton's best film since Boyz N The Hood (which isn't really saying much - Shaft and 2 Fast 2 Furious come to mind). There's some genuine suspense to be had here, and the action scenes actually feel fresh and exhilarating.


Wedding Crashers
(4 stars out of five)
--Funny As Hell: Lively direction, a genuinely funny script, Vaughn and Wilson in top form, and (thankfully) jokes that hit more than they miss. The opening sequence (at least 15 minutes long, set to the song "Shout" and taking place at dozens of wedding receptions) is especially well crafted and features exceptional editing. Raw and risqué, but it has its heart in the right place. It's a good half hour too long, and more jokes fall flat than they should, but it coasts along on its cast and the chemistry between the two stars. One great choice was to have Rolfe Kent (Sideways) compose the music. The funniest film of the year, and one of the funniest of the last few years.


Batman Begins
(4 stars out of five)
--Director Christopher Nolan (Memento) brings a fresh spin to the long-dormant Batman series. For the first time, we actually begin to discover who the title character actually is. The picture is helped immensely by the superb supporting cast (Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman). The first three-quarters or so of the film is great, as it deals with Bruce Wayne becoming you-know-who. Ironically, as soon as he's actually suited up and fighting the enemy, the film goes downhill and becomes the same old story.


50 First Dates
(3 stars out of five)
--Not the typical Adam Sandler movie. He's (thankfully) still in Punch-Drunk Love mode for this, and his character comes off as extremely likeable because of it. It's a strange picture: too low-brow for the very people who may actually get some enjoyment from it, and, for the other audience, definitely not a laugh-out loud Adam Sandler picture. As it is, it's a semi-dramatic film with distracting instances of low-brow humor that feel out of place.


Hustle & Flow
(1 ½ stars out of five)
--Something I thought I would really enjoy... Starts out well enough, but soon becomes cliché-ridden and utterly uninspired. The cop-out of an ending doesn't help, either.


Me and You and Everyone We Know
(2 stars out of five)
--Another disappointment... The trailer looks amazing, especially the first half of it. The film has won a slew of festival awards, including a special award for "Originality of Vision" at the Sundance Film Festival. The film sure is original... there's nothing quite like it out there. And it contains one of the funniest scenes you'll probably ever see involving a child and a computer. But it feels much too often like the film is just being weird to be weird, for the hell of it. It also doesn't help that writer/director/actor Miranda July isn't that great of an actress. But for some reason I keep thinking of it, weeks after I've seen it... I'm almost tempted to give it three stars, but I guess I'll see how it goes after a second viewing.

Jim --
Here's an article I thought you'd be interested in... it's about Jim Jarmusch (with some Tom Waits comments thrown in here and there)....

"The Last of the Indies"

(Requires registration at www.nytimes.com to view, but registration is FREE)

Some movie talk on Loveline

Director John Singleton (Boyz n the Hood) talks about film school, early influences, favorite films, and filmmaking in general.
Listen (MP3, 1.8 MB)

Adam talks about Boogie Nights, and about how he knew Paul Thomas Anderson when they were both kids growing up in the San Fernando Valley.
Listen (MP3, 1.2 MB)

Recruited another person for Songs For Silverman -- we start shooting material on Saturday...

A sad bit of news today:
Apparently the major film studios are very close to making their final push to replace film projectors with digital projectors - in as many theaters as they can. For film purists, this is a sad moment. We may be heading towards the point of being totally digital in 10 years or less...
Here's a brief video of P.T. Anderson giving his opinions on the matter:
(Click the picture to view)
(2.3 MB, Requires the Divx codec)

Hey everybody...
Even though the site is nowhere near complete, Ten Past Midnight Films now has an official site:
www.tpmfilms.com

I've always liked this:

(Click the picture to view)
(8.4 MB, Requires the Divx codec)

"The Great Movies"

I think I'm gonna try something new here...

Roger Ebert has something on his site he calls "The Great Movies". It's a list of movies which he considers the best ever made. Not just his favorites - he has movies on his favorites list that aren't on this "Great Movies" list - but a list of nothing less than what he considers the best cinema ever made. The movies don't have to be flawless (although some of them certainly are), but they're on that list because they are great examples of great movies. Movies that overwhelmingly accomplish what they set out to do, in his eyes.
Well, my list will certainly differ from Ebert's, but I'm going to do my own... Every once in a while, I'll add to the list. Who knows... It might even encourage someone to check out something they wouldn't normally see before.

Some reviews

Cinderella Man
An amazing film, and so far, the best film of the year. Everything clicks in this film. The acting, the directing, the screenplay, the editing, the music...every little piece is so clearly defined, it's obvious you're watching some masterful skills at work. The extremely sad thing is that this movie will not win the Best Picture Oscar (and possibly not even be nominated), no matter how acclaimed it is at year's end. The most obvious reason is, of course, that a boxing film won last year (Million Dollar Baby). Other reasons include the fact that the release of the film was delayed from last winter to this summer (the Academy frequently fails to "remember" films released in the summer season), and it failed at the box office. The only reason it may luck out and get nominated is if it's a bad year for good movies...
Anyway, we have a masterpiece on our hands here. One of the best films of the past several years. I cannot stress enough how good this film actually is... I've never been a big fan of Russell Crowe, but he's excellent in this, as is Renée Zellweger. The big standout performance here, though? Paul Giamatti!! Everyone, including me, who was pissed when he didn't get an Oscar nomination for Sideways, should be pretty happy next year, because he's almost a total lock for a supporting actor nomination for this, and he just might walk away with the award. He is nothing less than amazing in Cinderella Man. His performance is full of vitality and energy, and in some of the boxing sequences, his performance is what keeps the film moving. It's a big, loud, angry (but still charming) performance, the complete opposite of Sideways. Giamatti has a hell of a lot of range... I hope he gets noticed this time.
Ron Howard has really outdone himself with this. He won the Best Director award for A Beautiful Mind, but this is a much better showcase of his talent. While that last film saw him using a grab bag of visual tricks to convey the inside of someone's mind, this film has a very simple, restrained Howard simply telling his story. The direction in the film is very reminiscent of Howard's own Apollo 13, especially during the last 20 minutes or so. The direction is extremely tight and solid during this time, creating almost unbearable suspense as we (and everyone in the film) wait anxiously to see the results of the final fight, much like the feeling Howard created in Apoll0 13 as everyone anxiously awaited the fate of the astronauts. (Howard used a Crane 88 with a remote head (a remote-controlled camera on the top of a large camera crane) for these sequences in both movies, which gives a great, "sweeping" quality to the feeling of the films.)
This brings me to the reason why the film, and this ending sequence, works in the first place. Just like in Apollo 13, there is so much on the line in this picture, that by the time the ending rolls around, we feel so much for these characters. We want them to succeed, yes, but we identify with them in such a way that if they were to fail, it wouldn't feel like a plot device, but rather like the tragedy it is. This ending sequence is one of the best edited sequences in an extremely well-edited film. It's just long enough to make the suspense almost unbearable, but not too long to the point where it's overkill. This film, like Apollo 13, should be required viewing for people who want to see great examples of the traditional 3-act structure done right.
It also made me think, over and over again, about how much better this was than that "other" boxing movie. This movie just has so much more to offer than Million Dollar Baby: characters that are interesting, have motivations, and actually have something to lose; a screenplay that embraces its characters rather than looks down on them; and a screenplay that creates real obstacles and problems, rather than just taking the easy way out and creating a villain that needs to be defeated. Things have weight in this picture. Things never go beyond the surface in MDB.
Another thing that has to be mentioned is that this film contains one of the best depictions of poverty I've ever seen in film. I don't know if it was good research or if some of the people involved in this actually experienced extreme poverty, but I have to say that it hits the facts and the feelings SPOT ON. It's so truthful in how it handles this aspect, that it (1) Immediately gains your faith and your trust in the filmmakers to lead you through this story with confidence and grace, and (2) Accomplishes something which is extremely difficult and rare: Creates a strong connection and devotion to the main characters within just a few scenes. I have not felt such love for characters in a film in a long time. A far cry from Million Dollar Baby, where we see one scene of the main character stealing food, and that's all we see of her personal struggle.
Everything in this film just feels right. It's one of those films that puts your faith back in movies again, if only for 2 ½ hours. Don't miss this. Highly recommended.
(5 stars out of five)


War of the Worlds (2005)
A complete and total mess. The worst Spielberg film since... man, we might have to go all the way back to 1941 for that. One-dimensional characters, zero plot, Dakota Fanning (who's usually good) is annoying as hell, it's overlong, it's overbearing... and it reminds you of a million other better movies (especially when an alien chases some characters around in a basement - the scene is straight out of Jurassic Park). Worse still, it starts out by setting up a nice, dark tone... which it completely throws away later on in favor of a happy ending. Avoid like the plague.
(2 stars out of five)


Land of the Dead
A fitting fourth chapter to George A. Romero's Dead films, Land of the Dead rizes above the usual horror fodder by having a great cast, some memorable characters, and by including some of Romero's usual social commentary - to great effect.
In this film, the living dead have finally taken over the earth. The few survivors are (in a scathing commentary on the American social class system) split up into two groups: the rich live in a huge skyscraper that towers above the ground, surrounded by electric gates and other things to keep the zombies out. The poor, on the other hand, are forced to fend for themselves on the streets.
There's a bit of fun casting, with John Leguizamo and Dennis Hopper in supporting roles, and there's some great dialogue in Romero's script. Of course, there's enough blood and guts to keep the gorehounds happy, and there's also some genuine scares and suspense. The third act is a little typical, but everything else is so good, that can easily be forgiven. The ending, I have to say, is very satisfying. If it is the last film in the series, it's a great, subtle ending (I won't give it away, but it's great) that brings the entire story back around full circle, theme-wise, to the original Night of the Living Dead. Horror fans should like it, Romero fans will love it, and everybody else should give it a chance.
(3 ½ stars out of five)


Mr. and Mrs. Smith
Well, Doug Liman has finally made his first piece of shit. Swingers was great (mostly because of Favreau and Vaughn), Go wasn't bad, and even The Bourne Identity was a pretty good studio action picture. Mr. and Mrs. Smith is a complete mess, and a huge waste of talent. You can't even say that there's a good film waiting to get out, because the script is insanely fucked from the start... You have a picture in which there's no hero, no villain, no one to side with, no one to follow, the thinnest thread of a plot imaginable that things are hanging on, and a third act that not only negates the entire rest of the film, but is a complete cop-out. Everyone else in the theater seemed to like it, but I just couldn't get into it. They were laughing, and I sat in silence. I guess I went into it expecting more, and that's why I was so disappointed. I expected more from Doug Liman. I guess if it was Joe Schmo who directed this, I'd be a little more forgiving, but this was a Doug Liman film. If the man who directed Swingers has this much of a budget and comes up with something that's this pedestrian, it's definitely disappointing. That's the only way I can think of describing the film. Pedestrian. The action sequences, everything...it's just... there.
(1 star out of five)


Lords of Dogtown
What a great, great movie. It overcomes almost all of the conventions of the genre to become an entertaining, funny, and even touching story of a group of kids whose passion is skateboarding. What's even more amazing is that even though it's based on a documentary film called Dogtown and Z-Boys, and rehashes almost all of the events that were mentioned in the documentary, it still feels fresh and exciting. Amazingly, the film is actually a great companion piece to the aforementioned Dogtown documentary (which is excellent, by the way), and it manages to flesh out the characters even more the second time around. Catherine Hardwicke directs the film with a quality of honesty and an integrity that's rarely seen in movies these days. The result is a film that explodes with the true feelings and emotions of adolescencece. Of course, it doesn't hurt if your cast contains some of the most talented young actors working today: Victor Rasuk (from Raising Victor Vargas), Emile Hirsch (from, unfortunately, The Girl Next Door), John Robinson (from Elephant), and Heath Ledger, who's actually quite good in this (and unrecognizable) as the oldest guy, and thus the leader of the pack. There's some great dolly camerawork, and the production values on the picture are top notch, as well as the acting. Highly recommended.
(4 stars out of five)

In Good Company
This is one of those movies that really shouldn't work... On paper, it looks pretty problematic: you have a plot that feels just a little too much like a "studio pitch" summary (i.e. interesting situation that can be summarized in 25 words or less -- Middle aged man gets a new boss - someone who's young enough to be his son! And said new guy falls in love with his daughter!....lol), and films that have to use a "hook" like that usually don't offer the most satisfying viewing experience... Fortunately, In Good Company rises above its formulaic plot trappings and provides a truly good film. It really has things to say, and it doesn't hesitate to say them the way it wants to. Unfortunately, the things it has to say about corporate America, while totally spot-on and relevant, become much too over-the-top and and exaggerated near the end. It becomes overly preachy and almost threatens to negate the entire film. It's one of the rare wrong notes in the film, but it hits this sour note long and hard. It's a credit to the quality of the film that you're able to continue with the rest of it mostly unscathed, and the tone of the film unharmed. What it has to say about life and love and being in your early 20's, however, is what elevates this film to memorable status. (If you haven't seen the movie and don't wan't any spoilers, stop reading now....) It's one of the few recent Hollywood films that doesn't cop out in how it portrays a young relationship. It's been a long time since I've seen a film in which the two characters don't stay together in the end, and also a while since I've seen an ending like that and felt so satisfied. The movie has great messages about living your life and going out and doing what you need to do to be happy. It is, of course, helped immensely by the wonderful soundtrack populated by such bands as Iron and Wine, and it elevates the film once again to another level...and in my eyes, into the group of great coming of age movies, and movies that defined generations of young people, such as The Graduate and Garden State.
Not that it's without flaws, of course... For one thing, there's a few too many musical montages in the film... it's great music, sure, but it quickly became too predictable, and a little tiring to see yet another montage sequence happening. Scarlett Johansson's character is pretty thinly drawn, and so is the wife of Dennis Quaid's character...but I suppose that's beside the point. This is a film about two men and how they deal with life at their respective ages. More than anything, it's a film about making your life the best it can be, and doing whatever you have to do to achieve that. Topher Grace and Quaid are great, and turn in truly memorable and special performances. At the end, when Topher is running along the beach, at sunset, for the first time truly comfortable with himself and not needing anyone else, as "The Trapeze Swinger" plays on the soundtrack... you can't help but be inspired, for something more, for something else...for happiness. There was a smile on my face throughout this movie; a totally effortless smile. It was a joy to watch. The kind of film you want to share with others. Highly recommended.
(4 stars out of five)


Don't really feel like writing full reviews of these films
Hotel Rwanda
(3 stars out of five)


The Woodsman
(3 stars out of five)


Bad Education
(3 stars out of five)