Philmreview is moving...

This site is moving to Philmbuff.com. There you will find the same great reviews plus loads more for the "film fanatic" or aspiring filmmaker. Right now Philmbuff is in the process of construction so please be patient.

Thanks & I hope to see you there!

~ The Director

The Darjeeling Limited

The Darjeeling Limited - Trailer

Posted Jul 31, 2007

Three brothers re-forge family bonds on a train ride across the vibrant and sensual landscape of India, following the death of their father.

2007
Directed by: Wes Anderson

Cast:
Owen Wilson - Francis
Adrian Brody - Peter
Jason Schwartzman - Jack
Amara Karan - Rita
Bill Murray - The Businessman
Natalie Portman - Jack’s X-girlfriend


The Darjeeling Limited is in a nutshell, a roadtrip movie. Like all road trip movies it follows that there are passengers, there is a destination and everyone learns something valuable along the way. This time three brothers meet each other for a spiritual journey of sorts put together by the oldest; Francis(Owen Wilson), who assumes a motherly role over the other two - Jack, a womanizer played by Jason Schwartzman and the other, Peter, who is much of a mystery as he doesn’t divulge much in the way of character beyond the fact that his wife is going to give birth very soon. Francis has brought them all together to bond and see spiritual sites in India. They travel on the Darjeeling Limited (hence the name).
In the beginning all the brothers are mistrusting of each other. Along the journey the two young brothers go along with the older one’s dictating and incessant planning but eventually they turn on each other and a fight on the train ensues. They are promptly kicked off; dropped off in the middle of nowhere. Just when it seems like their spiritual journey has come to an end does it really truly begin.
To its credit the Darjeeling Limited does a good job of portraying the closeness and strain that is brotherhood. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to end. Just about the time when you feel the story should have ended there is a flashback and the story is catapulted into a different direction.
There are a few comedic moments and without this would make for a dry tale. In the beginning Bill Murray makes a guest appearance. He is passed up by Adrian Brody as they try to catch the train. I don’t know if this is symbolic but it sure seemed so to me. More symbolism is at the end when all the film’s characters are shown, each in a train compartment that alludes to their current place in life. It is a creative piece of work but one can’t help but wonder if the film is trying to hard to make its point.
2 ½ stars

Lars and the Real Girl

2007
Directed by: Craig Gillespie

Cast:
Ryan Gosling - Lars Lindstrum
Emily Mortimer - Karin
Paul Schneider - Gus
Kelli Garner - Margo

Seldom do you find a movie that deals with a taboo subject (a full-sized-toy-sex-doll) and also a mental illness so delicately and with such good taste as in Lars and the Real Girl. Lars lives alone and besides his co-workers and older brother, he has no on e close to him. That is until he orders his new girlfriend, Bianca. His brothers and wife are understandably shocked as is the rest of the town. However gradually, with the urging of the family doctor the family and the town learns to accept Lars and his “girlfriend.” Everyone joins in treating Bianca like she is real (she gets elected to the school board) and you can’t help wonder if the whole town is delusional as well.
It is doubtful that this story could have been told anywhere other than Hollywood. Throughout the story you are just waiting for his delusion to break or for a confrontation to occur where someone tells him that his girlfriend has more silicone than Pamela Anderson - but this never happens, nor does it need to.
The actors for their part play their roles well and with a genuineness that is believable. The cinematography is simple and to the point which is good since it fits well with this uncomplicated and unorthodox tale.
3 stars

The Andromeda Strain

1971
Directed by:
Robert Wise

Based on the novel by Michael Crichton

Cast:
Arthur Hill - Dr. Jeremy Stone
David Wayne - Dr. Charles Dutton
James Olson - Dr. Mark Hall
Kate Reid - Dr. Ruth Leavit


Robert Wise of The Sound of Music renown has set his sights on science fiction in this adaptation of a popular novel to the silver-screen. As in both instances an alien entity threatens life on earth and a select group must disarm it at the expense of great personal risk. This time a seemingly harmless satellite has crashed to earth in the remote New Mexico Desert. A military team is sent to retrieve the item which is currently (and remarkably unscathed) near a very small quiet town. But the town is abnormally too quiet - even for the dead of night. Before the team knows what has hit them all radio contact is lost and they are presumed dead. A flyby later confirms that the entire town has literally stopped in its tracks. People are lying around everywhere like it is the morning after New Years. But no signs of celebration are to be found.
A select team of scientists and a doctor is called in. “Wildfire” has been declared which is what we learn to be code for a potentially dangerous bio-hazardous situation posed by an unknown or alien biological agent. This picture was made during the time of the first lunar landings so contamination from a possibly alien and even totally unstoppable pathogen from space or the moon was a real concern. It is much like our modern fear of terrorists using biological weapons.
In any case, the team is called to a secret installation in the Nevada desert built specifically for containing and studying such hostile alien germs. There are rumors that this secret base was built for the possible use and development of alien germs to be used in bio-warfare - though unfortunately this isn’t expounded upon in the movie.
In addition to the satellite the only two survivors of the towns catastrophe are brought to the base to study why they survived. The rest of the movie entails trying to figure out what the “andromeda strain” is.
The Andromeda Strain is a movie that is heavy on set and a little short on story. Through our tour of the facility, which follows the team’s sanitization process we learn more about the base than the actual characters who seem shallow and stereotyped. This unfortunately is what happens when too many novels are put into screen adaptations. Don’t get me wrong, the set is important - and this one is masterfully created but in this case the characters are sacrificed for the plot. This film unfortunately falls like so many from the habit of overemphasizing special effects and set for story. Spiderman III (though not based on a novel) is an example of this but other movies like the Harry Potter series seem to do a good job of balancing both.

2 stars

Breathless

1960

Directed by Jean-Luc Godard

Michael - Jean-Paul Belmondo
Patricia - Jean Seberg

From the very beginning we find out that Breathless isn’t your ordinary film. To start out with the picture opens up close-ups on the main character. There is no sound to begin with and even later it is only gradually introduced. In addition the actor talks directly to the camera and throughout the film there are jump-cuts (visibly cut action) at places (during dialogue) when jump cuts are most noticeable. It is a well known unwritten rule that there aren’t supposed to be any discernable jump cuts in a film at all.
All things considered, starting out watching Breathless one might think that this film was put together by a novice. Though this is Godard’s first feature film, it is not a novice act at all in that it was all done very deliberately. In order to break away and revitalize the stagnant French film industry Godard and a group of other French filmmakers took it upon themselves to create films in a whole new way; with improvised dialogue, handheld cameras and deconstructed narratives. This movement was termed The French New Wave or “La Nouvelle Vague” and it gained an audience around the world.
Like many “New Wave” movies Breathless concerns itself with modern life and in particular with the lives of two young parisians: Patricia, a young woman who sells the New York Herald-Tribune and Michael, an opportunistic player and thief running from the law.
They may both be young and (questionably) in love with each other but they are different in important ways. Patricia is attracted to the risky and carefree lifestyle that Michael embodies yet underneath it she has aspirations of her own. Michael doesn’t have any discernable aspirations, besides going to Italy, presumably to run from the Law. He pressures her to join him in a style in which I can only compare to Marlon Brando. This scene takes up a good portion of the movie, and though being a tad overdrawn, it gives us time to see both characters as they truly are.
The questions in the viewers mind are: 1) is Patricia truly in Love with Michael & 2) Will she turn him in? We know that Michael is morally corrupt but it is Patricia’s moral ambiguity that keeps us watching.
I must admit that Breathless has a different feel to it than any other movie I have watched. With its own seemingly happenchance editing it could have been a disastrous movie yet its themes of love and morality keep it afloat. I would recommend Breathless to anyone who wants a “breath” of fresh air; to know that all films don’t have to follow a Hollywood-cookie cutter format and be successful.
3 stars

Becket

1964
Directed By: Peter Glenville

Cast:

Peter O'Toole - King Henry II
Richard Burton - Thomas a Becket
John Gelgud - King Louis VII of France


Thomas a Becket, the second most powerful man in England is not even of Royal Blood - in a time when what lineage you came from meant what status you held. On the contrary he was a Saxon - a group that was defeated by the Normans when they invaded England. At the time of the plots setting a generation has past but there is still hatred and distrust of both groups by each other. Becket wasn't just an "ordinary" Saxon, however, he was the kings friend and most trusted advisor. Beket was smart, cunning and wise where King Henry II, played by Peter O' Toole is little more than an overgrown winey adolescent. I hope this is the description of the character becasuse O' Toole plays this part so well. We know that he knows that he is king and we fear that is all he knows.
Becket is so trusted by the king that he is given the official seal of England. He does his job well, almost too well and King Henry - seeing that there is no one else that he can trust, or at the very least think like him, makes Beket the Archbishop of Canturbury with the idea that the church will now be on his side. Beket is many things but if there is one thing he is not, he is not somebody's man. He is a persuer of truth and most of all honor - what honor had been up that point had come in the form of serving his "prince." This had left him empty though and now entrusted with serving a greater cause - that being God's - he throws everything he has into this new role. It seems though one can serve only God or Country and not both.
Richard Burton plays his role a little stiffly. There isn't much show of emotion. Though that may be in keeping with character I thought that it was still a little overdone. On the other hand there must be some balance to cantakerous King Henry. Besides a few seens, the acting isn't too theatrical that it becomes burdensome.
What is central to grasp though is not so much the acting but the relationship between the title characters of Beket and King Henry. Like two sides of the same coin they opperate like a well oiled machine when working together. When they are opposed the country divides itself. Both are freinds but both also see that they have higher obligations - one to God and the other to Country. They are thrust into their roles by forces which they have no control over and if they had lived as any other class we would expect that they could grow old together being the best of freinds. The film does the best job of shedding light on this conflict.
2 1/2 stars

The Life and Times of Andy Warhol

1991
Directed by: Chuck Workman

Perhaps there is no artist more ambiguous than Andy Warhol. It was not just that he was ambigous as a person - he seldom spoke about his art and he would only do so if directly confronted, even then it was vague - his art says almost nothing about the painter behind it unlike other works. Most of his works don't have a single discernable brushstroke unlike say VanGogh where every stroke is defined and an entity in itself. The subject matter also doesn't reflect him - it reflects the pop culture of the time; Campbell Soup Cans and Marilyn Monroe. So in painting a picture of Andy Warhol (excuse the pun) the focus must be more on the people he colloraborated with. The Life & Times of Andy Warhol does a good job of this. In this documentary you won't find critiques of his work. What you will find is views and opinions on Warhol expressed by the people he came into contact with.
The film itself tries to be sort of "popsy" itself with pop songs in the background and a quick and sometimes chatoic tempo. This is not to say there isn't any order however. The film progresses chronologically from Warhol's humble beginnings growing up in Pittsburg to his time in New York City - where he spent the rest of his life. And could we imagine Warhol living anywhere else? The high fashion and endless barage of new products influenced him immensly. His earliest jobs were of illustrating for fashion publications. His goal however always had been to be an artist - so he just painted what he found, common objects, like soup cans. Unbeknowest to him he was painting in a trend that would later be called pop art amongst such artists as Lichtenstein, Rosencrants & Jasper Johns.
Soon his work catapulted him into the spotlight and he frequently enjoyed hanging around celebrities that frequented NYC clubs. If there was a party going on Warhol was there.
Besides screenprinting his famous Marilyns & Elvis's he also worked in Film - specifically experimental film. People seemed to interst him most and many of these films contain minutes of people just staring at the camera or interactions between two people. It was at this time that he created "the factory" where most of his art was produced. He was always surrounded by an eclectic mix of people who I think just drew themselves naturally to him. He wasn't conventional and neither were they. In the documentary you hear fisthand from this eclectic mix (the ones who didn't die prematurely anyway) and you realize that Warhol was just as different if not more so than they were. He may have been aloof to outsiders but to those who knew him he had a fun personality.
I'ld definnitly recommend this film to anyone curious about the man behind the work. I know we've all seen them. You may not learn why he painted them but really I don't think he knew. Whatever the reason, he captured the mood of America in the 60's like few had and will forever remain a cultural icon.
2 stars

In the Valley of Elah

(2007)
Directed By: Paul Haggis
Written By: Mark Boal & Paul Haggis

Cast:
Tommy Lee Jones - Hank Deerfield
Charlize Theron - Det. Emily Sanders
Jason Patric - Lt. Kirklander
Susan Sarandon - Joan Deerfield


Tommy Lee Jones stars as Hank Deerfield a man who is searching for someone. Instead of the usual fugitive however the person he is searching for is his son Mike - who disappears after coming home from Iraq. Hank, an ex military police officer, takes it upon himself to seek him out but when his remains are found singed and scattered in an empty field the case becomes one of looking for his killers.
(Charlize Theron) is an ambitious military criminal investigator who is assigned to the case. She proves throughout the film that she is not to be messed with, especially by any chauvinistic co-workers. Both will stop at nothing to find the killer(s).
The clear message of all this is that war changes you. You don’t return the same person you left as because your experiences make you and/or break you. Unfortunately a great many are broken by what they experience. This not only effects them directly but also their families as is the case in one scene where an ex-Iraqi soldier’s wife is drowned in the bathtub. In some ways the horrors of Iraq aren’t left there in the dust thousands of miles away but come home in the thoughts and/or actions of the soldiers returning.
Tommy Lee Jones does an excellent job playing a hardened veteran looking for his son. You can tell he has been trough a lot but there is nothing to prepare him for what he goes through in the story.
In the film he sees an immigrant man putting up the American flag upside down. He tells him, that its totally wrong - that a flag upside down is an international distress signal. At the end of the film we see Hank give the man a tattered flag that his son sent him from Iraq. He hoists flag into the breeze… and it is upside down. Perhaps this says it all.
3 1/2 stars

The Exorcist

Directed By: William Friedkin
Written By: William Peter Blatty

Cast:
Jason Miller - Father Damian Karras
Ellen Burstyn - Chris McNeil
Max Von Sydow - Father Lankester Merrin
Lee J. Cobb - Det. Lt. William F. Kinderman
Linda Blair - Regan Teresa McNeil


Based on a true story that happened in Georgetown in 1949, the story centers on the apparent possession of a girl, by demonic forces. When doctors can’t find a reasonable explanation to her split personality disorder they are forced to recommend a priest.
On a parallel course to their story we have a priest, Father Damian who originally studied psychiatry and is going through a crisis of faith. When he commits his mother to a hospital because she is all alone and can’t take care of herself, she soon dies alone afterward. He soon blames himself for this misfortune.
When he sees the girl he has reason to believe that there is something going on that is more than psychological. He takes his case to the church authorities who recommend someone with experience - Farther Merrin, who has looked evil in the eye before - literally. But can Father Merrin deal with the devil himself? Or more importantly can Father Damien wrestle a demon on the outside while wrestling with “demons” inside himself.
There are some beautiful shots early on in this movie but this is quickly replaced by an overall pervasiveness of evil. Most of the rest of the film takes place in the _’s bedroom where some of the most horrific scenes in all of any movie occur.
What stands out most to me is the ending, which is shocking not only because it is unexpected but because it lasts with you for so long after you’ve seen it. Indeed the movie still resonates with audiences today because it goes and goes well into an idea where so few movies dare venture - that good and evil are external to human beings and two very real forces in the universe.
3 stars

Apocalypse Now

Directed by: Francis Ford Coppola
Written by: John Milius

Cast:
Captain Willard - Martin Sheen
Colonel Kurtz - Marlon Brando
Colonel Lucas - Harrison Ford
Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore - Robert Duvall
Dennis Hopper - Photojournalist
Frederic Forrest - Jay ‘Chef’ Hicks

“I love the smell of Napalm in the morning.” Well, really I don’t, I have no idea what Napalm smells like (Nor do I want to) but Colonel Kilgore surely does. He is just one of the many colorful characters that make up Francis Ford Coppola’s masterpiece - Apocalypse Now. A film that explores the senselessness of murder and the breaking point that exists in everyone.
The movie is set in Vietnam during the war where special agent Captain Willard is sent to eliminate, “with extreme prejudice” a Colonel Kurtz, who has, judging from field reports and audio tapes, gone insane. He is deep in the Cambodian jungle and operating under is own jurisdiction. He has killed hundreds of innocent people and has a devoted following.
Captain Willard accepts the mission though not without hesitation as he states: “charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.” He goes up a river to his destination escorted by a few ‘kids’ and a boat captain.
As we go further up the river we progress like in Dante’s Inferno, deeper and deeper into hell. Man is back in his primordial element - it is kill or be killed. But it is more than just defense. There is also a deep senselessness in it all. The scenes can best be described as nightmarish. There is plenty of smoke and just that right balance of light and dark that makes for a particularly uneasy feeling. I couldn’t help but think if Rembrandt was the cinematographer he would have worked on this movie.
Everything comes to its climactic finale, the lowest circle of hell, or the end of the world, whichever you prefer, when Captain Willard meets up with Colonel Kurtz, who has become nothing less than a God to a tribe of natives and a few defected soldiers. The question soon becomes who will do the assassinating.
All in all, Apocalypse Now is a burning testament to the horror that is war. Perhaps the most horrific thing of all is what it can do to a perfectly normal human being and the idea that there might be a Colonel Kurtz buried in us all.
4 stars

Hot House

2006
Directed by Shimon Dotan

I went to see this film because it offered what I thought would be a unique perspective on a conflict that has stretched decades and ignited passions throughout the world - the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Call it a war, call it a conflict, call it an occupation, whatever you call it I’m sure you will agree that both sides know their side is right and more often than not, they won’t give an inch in the other’s direction. We usually see this conflict from one source - the media; whether it be newspaper or newscast and not from the people who are at the “frontlines” so to speak - those incarcerated in Israeli jails. But Shimon Dotan, does just that. In the film Palestinian “freedom fighters” are interviewed and we get to see conditions and social structure inside the jails itself. It could be said that the jails are a microcosm of the world outside. There are various cell blocks that prisoners share and each cell blocks occupants are either members of Fatah, Hamas or PLO. And if prison is supposed to be a demoralizing factor, these inmates certainly don’t show it. In fact many consider going to prison to be an education in itself. While there they learn from other men who where also part of crimes against Israel. They read the news extensively and learn more about the opposite side and world opinion than they would have on the outside. When they get out (if they get out, many interviewed had consecutive life sentences (one was 16)) they will almost surely be politically active again.
In fact, you could say they are politically active while in jail. There are free elections within the jail and even between jails.
The filmmaker, even though he is Israeli, doesn’t appear to take any side. Though I think it is perhaps equally hard to pick a side as a viewer. Many of the people we see don’t seem to be your typical “killers” but this is what they are charged with. Many are men with families and they are religious. Then there is also the side that says these people are murderers and would do so again in an instant to liberate their people.
Do they regret what they did? Not one interviewed did nor did they regret having contributed to the deaths of innocent civilians. But to many people these people are martyrs to the cause. I only hope that someday both sides can see that violence is not the answer to their trouble. As an old saying goes - an eye for an eye will leave everyone blind.
2 ½ stars

Murch

Directed by David Ichioka & Edie Ichioka

When everyone hears the name Francis Ford Coppola they know immediately who he is and even what films he directed. However, have you heard of Walter Murch? Probably not but if it was not for me such films as The Godfather and Apocalypse Now would most likely not be the cinematic masterpieces that they are. You see Walter Murch is the editor of films like these and other notable works like Breathless and The Conversation.
Most people may not think an editor’s job is that important but the next time you look at a film note each and every cut and you will find the editors mark there. They choose not only which shots juxtapose other shots but also they have a hand in how the sound relates to the images. Walter Murch composes with images and does so, surprisingly, standing up much like a conductor at the podium to his orchestra.
In the film I learned what a lengthy thought process it is to compose a sequence of a film and about the great amount of power the editor has in the creation process. I found it interesting that when Murch wants to make a cut from shot to shot he will not cut on an action as is the textbook norm but will try to get inside the head of the audience and make the cut long enough or short enough as to allow the audience to have a thought about that actor before the next image appears on screen. If an editor cuts too short on a piece of dialogue that holds clues to that character the audience is likely to feel that they were ‘shortchanged.‘ Another interesting technique Murch employs is editing without sound. He says it gets in the way and that a soundtrack is just “steroids” for a movie. Which is true if you think about it - if the images aren’t getting the message across to the audience, the soundtrack isn’t really going to help, it will actually hurt in the long run.
As a person who has edited video myself I took away a lot from this informative documentary and learned a lot about a man who has shaped cinema as much as any great director out there.
2 ½ stars

Taxi to the Dark Side

2007
Directed by: Alex Gibney

Create this Picture in your mind: You are driving your car to a large city along some rural road to pick up some people in the next town. All of a sudden you are stopped along a road because there was a tip that terrorists might be on the move after setting off a bomb. The police do a routine checkup and find a strange wire in your trunk which could have been used to trigger a bomb. You are quickly taken away to a jail where you aren’t told why you are arrested or given a lawyer. You are interrogated but pronounce you know nothing of what you have been accused of. New clothes are given to you and your arms are shackled to an iron mesh above your prison cell. You aren’t allowed to rest more than a few hours and even then you can’t sleep because if you doze off the handcuffs dig into your wrists and burn with pain. Later guards kick at your legs until they are pulverized. In a few days you are dead from your internal injuries.
This is a nightmare to most people - but this actually happened to one young taxi driver named Dilawar in Afghanistan. It was the first day of his job as a taxi driver and he was just driving some people he picked up in another town. He was later proven to be innocent as were the people he drove. This was unfortunately after he was beaten to death.
The film, though is not just about this one man but the many others who were incarcerated with little more against them than being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Of all those sent to bases to be interrogated , less than 5 percent were actually guilty of anything.
Taxi to the Dark Side details the mistreatment of prisoners under U.S. forces from Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan to the Abu Graib prison and Guatanamo Bay in Cuba. There is no embellishment in this film. It does not try to sway the viewer to any particular opinion. But it doesn’t need to either since the truth is right there for us to see in the degrading photos we see and from what we hear from actual prison guards at these locations.
The guards were told to think of the men there as less than human & they did a pretty good job of it - almost too good as many died from the inhumane treatment that is in total disregard to the Geneva Convention.
Taxi to the Dark Side really made me consider our foreign policy in harsher light. I had heard of the prisoner abuse scandals before and had seen pictures but to be reminded that it was our troops & most of all our leaders who had done this was especially hurtful. There was an interesting point brought up and one I’ld like to mention here. We Americans pride ourselves in belonging to a free country with inalienable rights for all mankind, where everyone under American protection can count on fairness and justice, do we not? If so, then how can we treat other human beings in such an inhumane way? It sends the opinion that if you are foreign you can be treated as: A) subhuman, B) a terrorist, C) unjustly, D) all of the above. I do wonder how many innocent prisoners became terrorists later after they were let out - only time will tell.
4 stars

Our Daily Bread

Directed by: Nikolaus Geyrhalter

Do you ever wonder where your food comes from? Sometimes I think part of the joy in eating comes from the fact that you don’t have to. Lets face it, most of us would rather not know that our burger came from cud-chewing Betsy only a few days ago or that our eggs came from chickens who exist in towers of cages that would make crowded Tokyo seem like Lincoln, Nebraska. Oh, and don’t get me started on the bacon. All of it (at least a great many food items) is presented here in its glory, uncut and unglamourized. The only sounds we hear are the sounds of conveyor belts or the sound of a saw slicing through bone and tissue. The atomization is quite spectacular and even amusing in some scenes - like a machine that propels chicks into trays like they were feathered ping pong balls (I am surprised the chicks don’t get concussions). But not all of Our Daily Bread shows the atomization of the food industry. There is a person behind that salami to be sure. Often we see them go through their daily tasks with all the exuberance of, well, aging cheese. There are a few takes to the workers taking their lunch break showing us that they eat too and their food is no doubt prepared by people like them. The real question is the woman who is putting bands on chickens all day having a chicken sandwich? I think not. Or at least I wouldn’t.
Cinemagraphically there are some great shots that give us the idea of the scope and scale of what it takes to feed billions of people whether it be rows of greenhouses or thousands of olive trees. When you think about it is quite amazing.
Many of the images are graphic and not for the faint of heart (or stomach). In Our Daily Bread the processes are shown in full detail from artificial insemination to the slaughterhouse. Everything is precisely controlled and maintained. If you are familiar with The Matrix then you will remember a scene where there are towers of human beings being produced for the specific purpose of providing energy to the machines that have taken over the earth. I wonder how the animals reaction would be if they knew they were that to us? But then again part of the joy of being an animal must be not knowing such things.
A good film and A good look for anyone who wants to see our food from the other side of the counter.
2 stars

Great World of Sound

2006
Directed By: Craig Zobel
Written By: Craig Zobel
Co-Writer: George Smith

Cast:
Martin - Pat Healy
Clarence - Kene Holiday
Layton - Robert Longstreet
Shank - John Baker
Pam - Rebecca Mader
Gloria - Tricia Paolucio
There are two types of people in the world: Those who want to be stars and those who want to make money off of those people. This may be a gross generalization of course but reflecting on Great World of Sound I couldn't help but feel that way. The movie follows two upcoming talent scouts (producers) working for Great World of Sound Recordings. Martin (Pat Healy) is an unasuming man who is devoted to his girlfriend and a self proclaimed "idea" man (his girlfriend derives much of her inspiration from he, so he says). His partner, Clarence, a father of six children is much less afraid to say what is on his mind.
They are both soon sent out on the road to gather talent. Whether that talent is good or bad, they try to make them put money up front as "assurance" that they are genuinly interested in making a record. Despite being sent to cheesy hotels where they interview the candidates in their room, they make off pretty good to begin with. There are quite a few bad singers and not many good ones. Clarence does a fantastic job of buttering them up and making them believe they actually do have talent. But then again Clarence doesn't have much of a choice. He has a family to feed. On the other hand we see Martin's morality starting to weigh heavy on him. A little girl from a poor background is led to believe that she has a chance with a song that Frank Sinatra himself couldn't turn around.
He knows that not everyone will get a chance to get a make a record even though they put their money in like everyone else. Like their boss points out, you wouldn't be able to afford college if colleges accepted only the best and brightest students - there would be far too few. It doesn't sound fair but it is true.
The cinematography and acting in this Film I thought was mediocre, but what I liked best was the story and oddly enough the ending. It seemed very sad and yet very true and thus real at the same time.
2 1/2 Stars

The Bicycle Thief

Directed By: Vittorio De Sica

Cast:
Lomberto Maggiorani - Antonio Ricci
Enzo Staiola - Bruno
Lianella Carell - Maria

In postwar Italy life is not easy for most. Men who fought in the war are fighting now just to put food on the table. Work is not easy to come by and Antonio feels like his misfortunes have made a turn for the better when he gets a job putting ads around a large city. It has fairly good pay and it pays extra for his family of four. Trouble is, he will need a bicycle for the job. He bartered his last bicycle for bread money and now his wife has to sell their bed sheets so he can get the job.
All seems fine on the first day of work until a young man steals his bike away. In that instant his hopes fall through the floor. The company that employs him won’t get another bike. He asks some friends to help look but it is a daunting task. In the marketplace we glimpse row after row of bicycles. When they all look so similar I have no idea how they can tell a certain model apart from any other. The search ends up being useless and right when he is about to give up hope he spots the thief and his bike but can’t catch him. No one seems to help stop the thief either and no one is very willing to help. When he finds the thief later the entire neighborhood speaks up for him - now he is up against no less than a local mob. There are no witnesses and the bike is nowhere in the thief’s house.
At this point we can’t help but feel the father’s feelings of despair and failure. Right beside him is his son and everything comes to climactic low when Antonio resorts to stealing another bicycle - one of hundreds just left there in the open. This time of course there are plenty of people that come after Antonio. Right when he is being taken to the police the person who’s bike he stole sees Bruno, his young son, and decides not to press charges. The worst thing is that Bruno, his son witnesses this. In the end it is his young son that comforts his father.
In the final analysis I wouldn’t say this is not a feel-good movie but it is definitely a star in the Neo-realist films that were produced by Italy after the war. Unlike American films which always tended to have happy endings - with a soldier coming home to his sweetheart or a cowboy riding off into the sunset - these films painted a grimmer more true-to-life portrait of the working man’s struggle to live in a harsh and unforgiving world. In a country like Italy - on the losing end of WWII this was unfortunately, all too apparent.
The Bicycle Thief, to its credit doesn’t try to hide anything in a sugar coated façade. It drives its point home directly and repeatedly. Gone are the external enemies from other countries - now the only enemies are our own country men.
3 stars

Panic Room

Directed By: David Fincher
Written By: David Koepp
2002

Jodi Foster - Meg Altman
Kristen Stewart - Sarah

The uneasiness in this movie is felt from the very opening credits when large letters hover menacingly over the Manhattan skyline. The characters themselves seem ready to crack. For instance, Jodi Foster plays Meg Altman, the recently divorced wife to a pharmaceutical specialist. She is the awkwardly overbearing mother to Sarah who is at that age where she thinks she doesn’t need her mom yet knows she still does.
The movie opens up with the two of them being shown a brownstone house in Manhattan’s northwest side. It has everything you could want, lots of space a decent backyard (sort of) and even more - a safe room, a room where the residents can go if they are being burglarized and call the police. Being the overprotective mom she is this is probably the selling point. They move in and are promptly - you guessed it - burglarized. After they go to bed three men break in looking to crack open a safe in the panic room. They are an odd bunch to say the least and the oddest one has to be Raul who plays himself up to be a real hotshot. Mrs. Altman hears them downstairs and rushes both her daughter and herself into the panic room before the buglers can catch them. Unfortunately the panic room becomes more of a tomb than a refuge for her and her daughter as she didn’t connect the room’s phone line. Meg has seen their faces so she knows her and her daughter will most likely be killed. The burglars know there is at least three million dollars in the Panic Room and they will stop at nothing to get it. There are two very strong forces battling each other here - the will to live and greed. They are all desperate emotions and only one side can win. Which will it be?
Cinematically this film is superb. The camera goes anywhere. With a clever mix of good footage and computer-generated effects we don’t go around corners, we go through them. It adds a disquieting feeling to the movie and only increases our participation as spectators to the events that unfold.
The suspense certainly doesn’t lack either. When Mrs. Altman must rush to get the cell phone while the burglars are bickering downstairs we see everything in slow motion and desperately hope she’ll get it in time.
The characters are well done as well. You may be surprised to find that the burglars in particular aren’t cookie-cutter robbers but rather are very distinct and believable
Overall a great suspense film that leaves a lasting impression.
3 stars

No Direction Home: Bob Dylan

Directed By: Martin Scorsese

This is fitting tribute by one of the greatest filmmakers to one the greatest musicians. In its two parts we are taken from Dylan’s Humble beginnings in Hibbing, Minnesota to his tours in Europe. To someone who has heard of Dylan and only vaguely has heard his music or discounted him because he doesn’t carry a tune as well as most other singers I would say take a look at this documentary and you will gain a whole new understanding on the life and times of this artist. To those who have heard and enjoy his music, such as myself, this film only gave me new understanding of Dylan and a deeper appreciation of his talent.
What is used to tell the story of Bob Dylan is not only Dylan’s own accounts and thoughts but also archival footage as well as the people he sang with or worked with. We learn he (his real name was Robert Zimmerman) had a knack for music from an early age and was most influenced by topical singers like Woody Guthre. Though many people say he was a topical singer Dylan himself opposes that label.
His town of Hibbing in Minnesota was a Mining town and it really isn’t any place to be for a young man interested in pursuing a career in music. For a while he thought about going into Military School but eventually decided to go to New York City which at that time was the center of everything both new and old in America. He plays at bars in Greenwich Village and eventually rises in popularity. It is certainly not his voice that has started making him sell records like practically every singer of that time. Rather it is what he had to say. What he writes seems to resonate with America’s youth and culture even though he claims he didn’t know why he wrote what he did or even what the inspiration for it was. The “biography” continues to go on about Dylan and how as his fame grew he resisted the attempt made on him by others to conform him to a particular cause or movement. It has been said that this ability for Dylan to be his own person was the reason why people where so strongly attracted to him. The same I think can be said for his music, the best of which is his original work and that is that it is authentic.
Scorsese for his part has done a good job of telling Dylan’s story. He has interwoven interviews, archival footage and performances into a mosaic that starts at the end in the beginning goes to the beginning and then comes full circle at the end. He doesn’t take really any artististic liberties with the film and it is good that he doesn’t. After all it is Dylan’s story and as artist he is no more than a mirror for reflecting the truth around him…I think Dylan would agree.
4 stars

Zodiac Trailer (Post below)

Zodiac

2007
Directed by: David Fincher

Starring:
Jake Gyllenhaal - Robert Graysmith
Robert Downy Jr. - Paul Avery
Mark Ruffalo – Inspector David Toschi
Anthony Edwards – Inspector William Armstrong
Chloe Sevigny – Melanie
Brian Cox – Melvin Belli
John Carroll Lynch – Arthur Leigh Allen

California, late 1960s - a serial killer strikes a young man and woman parked near a lake. He kills her and seriously injures him. Weeks later a young couple is stabbed to death near a resevoir. Later a San Fransisco newspaper gets a letter. In it is detailed the killings and specific information that only the police would know. The writer identifies himself as the killer and gives himself the name of Zodiac. He says he will commit more murders unless they print his letters. They do so but Zodiac kills anyway, or at least says he does.
Zodiac has a knack for staying a step ahead of the police and the detective, his partner and the staff at the newspaper rack their brains trying to piece together the murderer. They make an appeal for any information leading up the arrest of the Zodiac and they get hundreds of leads. One though is quite interesting. It leads them to a man who fit’s the bill almost perfectly. He mentions things in the letters and on top of that carries a Zodiac watch. It however all “circumstantial” evidence. There just isn’t enough linking him to the crime scenes. The only thing nuttier than this guy is his squirrel-infested trailer. They find guns but they are all the wrong types for the crimes.
When Robert Downy Jr ‘s character (Paul Avery) has a breakdown because he is targeted by Zodiac, and the detectives pretty much give up on the case because the killer hasn‘t been caught, Robert Greysmith takes it into his own hands to catch the Zodiac. Will the killer be caught and brought to justice? Or is Zodiac, like some people believe just taking credit for crimes he didn’t commit? As with any good who-done-it I make it a habit of not spoiling the ending. What good is watching or reading a mystery if in your mind the crime is already solved?
Jake Gyllenhaal’s character is genuine enough and you’ve got to give his character credit for sticking with it even thought the killer ominously calls him on the telephone. Robert Downy Jr, is excellent as the journalist who gets a little too involved with his subject.
From what I’ve read, most of the night scenes in this movie (and there are quite a few) where shot on green screens and the backgrounds made to look like 1970’s San Fransisco. If this is the case they certainly did a good job as I couldn’t tell the point where the set ended and the green screen began. As you may recall 300 did this same thing except I think Zodiac would be much harder as they are dealing with intricate city streets and not a featureless background. The story is based on true events as the cartoonist and make character went on to write a real-life best selling novel on the murders. The movie itself does a good job of telling the story from graphic killings - to portraying the various forms of obsession that inhabit the main characters in their effort to solve the case.
2 ½ stars

Seven

Directed by David Fincher

Cast:
Morgan Freeman - Detective Lt. Somerset
Brad Pitt - Detective Mills
Kevin Spacey - John Doe
Gwenth Paltrow - Tracy Mills

John Doe, the serial killer in Seven, weaves a string of killings so well thought out and executed that Hanibal Lectur himself would be jealous. However the true master work in this film is the way in which each scene is presented. The cinematographer must have done a painstaking job getting the lighting just right and the camera angles just perfect. Together with a fine acting job by Freeman, Pitt and Spacey make this a movie, that despite its gruesome subject matter is worth seeing.
Brad Pitt is the quintessential rookie know-it-all cop, just moved to the city with his wife Tracy (Paltrow). He is paired up with Somerset a long veteran of investigating who has seen his fair share of inhumane cases and it starts to show. Whereas Pitt is jittery and somewhat naiive about human nature, Somerset has a more hardened down-to-earth view. Both have never encountered a case like this one though. They encounter a string of murders that are linked in that each are executed in a way fitting to one of the seven deadly sins - for instance the obese man killed by gluttony was forced to eat until he literally exploded. Their killer can’t be traced as the bodies pile up and the list grows shorter.
Both Somerset and Mills have their own way in which they handle the case. Somerset spends his nights researching the library while Mills stares at photographs and reads cliff notes on Dante. As you might guess one is more productive than the other. After a stroke of insight they almost catch their killer but lose him - that is until he hands himself in. This is all part of his master plan however. He says he will deliver the last two bodies on condition that Mills and Somerset accompany him. The ending is both shocking and intense. This is one of those endings that just can’t be spoiled so I won’t say anything more about that.
What I will say is that this movie is very well thought out. Going through the rooms of the killer was like a trip through the killers mind itself. The scenes where the murders take place allude to not only the crime but to the people who were killed themselves. In the killer’s mind each of these people has committed one of the seven deadly sins and must be made an example of. And they really do make a statement. As the killer says himself no one will listen to you anymore if you tap them on the shoulder - you have to hit them with a sledge hammer to take notice. As time goes on the “sledge hammer” only gets larger. Just think of terrorists using airplanes instead of bullets and you get my picture.

4 stars

Memento

2000
Directed by Christopher Nolan

Starring:
Guy Pierce - Leonard
Carrie Anne-Moss – Natalie
Joe Pantoliano – Teddy Gammel

Memento is probably not like any other movie you have ever seen. In it uncharacteristic of your usual film in that it doesn’t follow a linear point from beginning to end. Actually the story is cyclical - the end is at the beginning and also at the end. The story runs backwards & it definitely confusing; about as confused as the main character who after a head injury is suffering from short-term memory loss. Imagine forgetting why you started a conversation with someone after you’ve been talking to them for a few minutes yet remembering all your past events before a certain time. This is the problem Leonard (Guy Pierce) faces. On top of that he is seeking revenge for his wife’s death. In addition to killing his wife the head injury the killer gave him left him with his “condition.”
In order to remember his mission and keep his clues straight he keeps notes written down and tattooed on his body. He also takes Polaroid pictures of people to let him know who they are and if they are to be trusted or not. Each day he wakes up not knowing where he is or what he did the previous day. An undercover cop, Teddy (Joe Pantoliano) is keeping an eye on Leonard and his personal vendetta and using him to nab some crooks on the side.
But then again everyone seems to use Leonard. Teddy leads Leonard to Natalie (Carrie Anne-Moss) and her drug dealing boyfriend with clues that convince him he is his wife’s killer. As he doesn’t write a note he forgets but it comes back to hurt him later when Natalie finds out he killed her boyfriend. Just one word: PEN.
Leonard thinks, or makes himself think, he is in control the whole time since he has a “system” that keeps him organized from one day, one hour to the next. But, he is no more than a puppet on strings, getting pulled one way and then the other. I thought the movie was very well done. In addition to a compelling and out-of-the-box plotline the actors did a fine job of bringing out the worst in their characters personalities when they had to and hiding their intentions the rest of the time.
Also, there is something to be said about the way the movie made me second-guess myself. If Leonard was a puppet on strings then I as a viewer was equally so wondering who to believe and who not to. I wasn’t even close to expecting the clincher at the end.

4 stars

Boondock Saints

Directed by: Troy Duffy
1999

Cast:
Sean Patrick Flannery - Conner
Narman Reedus - Murphy
Willem Dafoe – Paul Smecker

Religious zealotry takes on a whole new dimension in this film when two young, Catholic, Irish men take on getting rid of criminals in the name of God. We regularly hear about this today except it is fanatical Muslims killing innocent people. But when it comes right down to it, it is all still killing isn’t it? I can not help bringing this up seeing this movie brings up these sort of thoughts. What you think about what the main characters to says a lot about what you think about justice.
The film starts out fairly innocently enough. The men, Conner and Murphy own little more than the clothes on their back and have deep allegiances to their faith, not to mention the local Irish Bar. So like two good Irishmen they defend the bar from being shut down by the Russian Mafia (those atheists!). A good ‘ole fight ensues and the losing Russians go out in bandages. But their pride is hurt more than their bodies and they come back to visit the two lads to exact their revenge.
Fortunately they get out of this scrap as well. When they are caught, or rather when they walk into the police station of their own accord, they are let go on it being self defense. Nobody misses those dead Russians it turns out.
The two men have what can be called a religious experience and receive what they perceive to be direct orders from God telling them to vanquish all scum from the earth. They start on the local Russian mafia and through a series of happy accidents get rid of most of them. They take on a crude and clumsy sidekick (David Della Rocco) who is more trouble than he’s worth. Together the three of them knock off druggies, rapists, mafiosos and some other pretty bad people, like nobody’s business.
Behind all this, sniffing their trail is an openly gay cop played by William Defoe (what hasn’t he played?) This is perhaps the funniest role I’ve seen him in. While going through investigating the murders he goes from serene to disheveled when the ‘Saints’ as they’re now called are just one step ahead of him.
The choreography is by no means on the level of Scorcese but it isn’t bad. The directory obviously likes using A LOT of camera pans though. Often cuts go from one to the next and the camera never stops moving. I don’t find this distracting but rather it is appropriate to the film. Perhaps what I liked most about it however was that it made you think. In this day and age where Hollywood superheroes with magical powers vanquish evil left and right it was a refreshing change of pace to see some vigilantes with no extra-ordinary gifts (?) behind them take out the trash so to speak. Think what you will, I for one think that killing human life, whether it be in the name of God or not is wrong. For being such adherents to the church these men seem to have forgotten the first commandment: Thou shall not kill. See the movie yourself and you can be the judge.

3 stars

Pan's Labyrinth

(2006)
Directed by: Guillermo del Toro

Cast:
Ivana Baquero - Ofelia
Meribel Virdu - Mercedes
Sergi Lopez - Captain Vidal
Doug Jones - Pan/Pale Man
Ariadna Gil - Carmen Vidal


Reality can be the scariest nightmare of all. It is Spain at the end of the Spanish Civil War. Franco’s regime is determined to eliminate all the remaining rebels. Enter Ofelia a girl of twelve or so who still enjoys fairy tales. She along with her mother are sent by the Captain (who must be the son of Satan himself) to live with him while he is stationed at a Mill in the Spanish wilderness. In particular he wants her to have his baby there.
There is no one Ofelia’s age and the world around her is so deranged that the only way she can probably keep her sanity is to make a fantasy world for herself. Her adventures begin as she meets Pan, an old satyr that lives belowground at the center of a labyrinth. Pan tells her that she is the reincarnated daughter of the king and queen of a magical realm. There are quests she must take however to prove her worthiness. This involves retrieving a key from a hippo-sized toad & getting a knife from an eyeless child- eating monster.
The real monster in this movie is the Captain who has no respect for life whatsoever. When two trappers are thought to be spies he savagely beats one’s face in with a bottle. Then he checks their bags and finds the rabbits. His excuse is they should have been questioned before being brought to his attention. He seems to take great pride in torturing the people he finds as well.
Mercedes the maid and Ofelia’s only friend takes great risk in bringing supplies to the rebels right under the captain’s nose. The rebels also risk death daily to be free from tyranny.
I thought the movie was sad, deeply touching and honest in its portrayal of blind followers and brave rebels. The cinematography was excellent. The play of light and shadow was superb in setting the mood. The story is well told and it is easy for the viewer to sympathize and even empathize with the main character Ofelia. This movie is graphic at times but it all goes to show that real life is no fairy tale.

3 ½ stars

Volver

(2006)*
Directed by Pedro Almodovar

Cast:
Carmen Maura - Abuela Irene
Penelope Cruz - Raimunda
Lola Duenas - Sole
Yohana Cobo - Paula

(Penelope Cruz) & (Lola Duenas) two sisters visit their aunts place they notice some things out of the ordinary. Even though their frail aunt is nearly blind she still bakes for them like a machine and on top of that there is a new exercise bike in her bedroom. When she dies the lady who looks after her swears she heard their dead mother warn her that their aunt had died.
Like any good ghost their mother Irene does come back to take care of unfinished business, but not in spectral form. It is hard to when you didn’t die in the first place. She appears to one of her daughters first & lives with her posing as a Russian.
Meanwhile another event has run its course with Raimunda’s husband Paco (Antonio de la Torre). You see Paco is, to put it lightly, a bit of a pervert and goes after his adopted daughter Paula. She defends herself and accidentally kills him with a knife that looks like it was taken from a Haloween set. Raimunda takes full responsibility for her daughters actions. No one must find out and no one really does.
Later we find out that there is a history of this sort of thing in the family. It is learned that Raimunda’s father raped her and their daughter is Paula. Apparently after this Raimunda and her mother weren’t on good speaking terms as well. As if this wasn’t bad enough (oh yes it gets worse) the father had an extramarital affair with another woman. When Irene has found out them both in a hut she sets fire to it killing both of them. She flees never to be heard from or seen again until she makes an appearance at their aunt’s place , looking after her, baking and of course riding an exercise bike.
But the old adage that you can’t keep skeletons in the closet (or ghosts under the bed in this case) holds true. Lola lets on to Raimunda that their mother is alive and the process of healing and forgiveness can begin.
Raimunda does an especially fine job of acting in her role. Her character is crafty but in a good way. What helps the movie is some of the scenes (particulary where Paco’s body is being hidden) that have an element of dark humor in them. This serves to lighten up the situation. Without them the movie would otherwise seem too serious. What spoils it all is the fact that their mother really is flesh and blood. When Sole and Irene hug for the first time after not seeing each other you almost want Sole to go right through her. Also we never hear Irene say anything to Sole about why she alive and not six feet under. So we find it strange that Sole is so uninterested in asking any questions. The movie didn’t really touch me though. Perhaps I had to be a daughter or mother to feel something. In the end it made me feel as dead as the Irene character should have been.

*In subtitles
2 stars

A Scanner Darkly

Directed By:
Richard Linklater

Based on a book by Philip K. Dick

Keanu Reeves - Fred Arctor
Rory Cochrane - Charles Freck
Robert Downy Jr. – Barris
Wynona Ryder - Donna Hawthorne

A Scanner Darkly is not your usual science fiction film in that it is animated instead of the usual harsh if not cutting edge reality. I for one found it refreshingly different and it seemed to fit the story.

Scanner Darkly is adapted from the prolific science fictions writer Philip K. Dick’s story also by the same title. In it Keanu Reeves plays an undercover agent that tries to catch dealers of Substance D - a hallucagenic drug that causes split personalities. Something like 20 percent of the population is addicted so this agent has his work cut out for him obviously. These agents wear suits that disguise their identities by constantly shifting into new persons. Though I wonder why an old fashioned mask and voice manipulator won’t do. Anyways this agent has Fred Arctor’s house bugged with surveillance cameras to catch him. Now Fred Arctor has two pretty strange and amusing friends that live with him. One is very smart but has no common sense, the other is just dumb. The smart one constantly comes into headquarters to rat on Arctor.

Fred Arctor is addicted to Substance D big time. So much so in fact that his left and right brain hemispheres have “disconnected” and he lives a dual life - as the agent who is watching his house. Since he wears the special suit no one knows it is him. He has to take tests at his work which indicate he is a user. Big surprise. However, his boss has known for quite some time that he was a user but just used him to get to his roommate Barris. So now the agent/Fred Arctor is sent to rehab and eventually is sent to a farm. Below the corn that he sprays grows the deadly blue flower from which the drug is made. Unfortunately Arctor is so catatonic by this time that it really doesn’t register. There is some sick irony in the fact that the rehab corporation is the same one that is growing Substance D.

The hazards of drug use are clear in this movie. Apparently his book was dedicated to those the author knew who had wasted their lives with mind altering drugs. Probably the best performance is done by Barris. He is wonderfully eccentric and seemingly harmless and adds some needed humor to the film. As I’ve said the movie with its shifting colors and unorthodox rendering is very appropriate for the genre and subject. On the flip side it seems strange that no-one asks Arctor what he does during the day - nor do we see him “switch” from one personality to the other. A good rental.

2 stars

The Fountain

(2006)
Directed By:
Darren Aronofsky

Starring:
Hugh Jackman - Tom/Tommy/Dr. Tom Creo
Rachel Weiss - Queen Isabel/Izzi Creo
Ellen Burstyn - Dr. Lillian Guzetti

There is nothing as timeless as love. Nothing could be truer than in this science fiction movie where in the past, present and future three parallel stories are told at once.
In the present Hugh Jackman plays Tom, a cancer researcher/surgeon. He is experimenting on monkeys who have brain tumors to see if anything will help. Out of desperation he uses a bit of tree taken from the Guatemalan Jungles. Miraculously the primate not only recovers but he is better than normal.

At the same time is the story of a conquistadors search for the “tree of life.” Whoever drinks of its sap will live forever. Hugh Jackman takes on this quest from the queen of Spain, also played by Rachel Weisz. In the future we see Hugh Jackman as an astronaut journeying with the “tree of life” to a distant star where his love will be reborn. Whatever the time all three pursue a quest to save the women they love.

The cg effects, particularly of the future Hugh Jackman are quite amazing and simply beautiful. The story itself can be a bit confusing if you try to think too much into it or if you try to think of all three characters as the same like myself. There are reasons to believe that the present day Tom does live into the 26th century and with a leap or too it is conceivable that he is the conquistador, and hence his journey is cyclical. The imagery of circles throughout the film further supports this idea. Hugh Jackman plays his character a bit too theatrically at times for my tastes. You’re not a “X-Man” anymore dude.

2 1/2 stars

Ocean's 13

(2007)
Directed by: Stephen Soderbergh

Staring

George Clooney – Danny Ocean
Brad Pitt – Rusty Ryan
Al Pacino – Willie Bank
Matt Damon – Linus Caldwell
Elliott Gould – Reuben Tishkoff
Eddie Jemison – Livingston Dell
Don Cheadle – Bashar Tarr
Shaobo Qin – Yen
Casey Affleck – Virgil Malloy
Scott Cann – Turk Malloy
Bernie Mac – Frank catton
Carl Reiner - Saul Bloom
Eddie Izzard – Roman Nagel

The Oceans gang is back at it again and this time better then ever. When Reuben is cheated out of his stake in some valuable Las Vegas property by Mr. Bank (Al Pacino) (and consequently has a heart-attack) the Ocean’s crew decide to enact a little revenge, and turn a tidy profit in the process. You can expect elaborate schemes and just the right dose of humor.
The ring leaders Danny Ocean (George Clooney) and Rusty Ryan (Brad Pitt) plan to go after Mr. Bank new hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. Of course the casino has a state-of-the-art detection software that makes a polygraph look like an abacus. An elaborate scheme is hatched to buy a tunnel drill and drill under the casino to cause an earthquake to get Mr. Bank in the right spot to… well lets just say a lot of things have to come together to pull this off. I don’t think I’ll give the plot away on this one - its one of those you have to see to understand fully. Besides I would go clear down to the bottom of this webpage if I tried.
What I can say is though the plot may be totally unbelievable the actors who played their characters are very believable. Al Pacino steals the show (what could you expect - he’s Al Pacino in a Casino for crying out loud). As a stuck up filthy rich casino owner you could find no better actor. Matt Damon gets a larger role going after the boss’s secretary. Another good performance is by David Paymer who is rating the hotel for the prized 5-diamond award. One can only feel sorry for his predicament.
I think though the whole fun of this movie is watching Mr. Bank fall. You know what’s going to happen but its enjoyable watching it all the same. Besides he cheated his partner and he needs a lesson in humility. No ones better to deliver that than the Ocean’s 13 crew.

3 stars

1408

(2007)
Directed by:
Cast:

Samuel Jackson – Geral Olin
John Cusack – Mike Enslin
Mary McCormack - Lily Enslin

Mike Enslin (John Cusack) is a skeptical writer of books on haunted houses and hotels. But after all who could blame him - he’s never seen a ghost let alone heard one unexplained “bump” in the night. He writes off all the stories as just that - stories to help promote business at hotels. One hotel that doesn’t need the publicity but has just such a rap is the Dolphin Hotel in New York City. No one is allowed to check in to it and supposedly more dead people come out of it than a morgue. Samuel Jackson plays the ill-suited role of the hotel manager who tries to bribe Mike not to stay in the room for his own sake. As he says: “no one has lasted more than an hour.” In the end Mike is firm in his standing. There are “no such things as ghosts” he tells him.
The suspense that is built up when Mike opens the door is quite a bit. Hitchcock would have been proud. We expect to see ghosts around every corner and skeletons hanging in the closets. But the room itself is ordinary enough on first appearance; nothing more than a quaint upscale New-England style decor. The only thing wrong with it seems to be a broken thermostat. When Mike has his back turned the toilet paper is replaced and chocolates appear on his bed. Not so bad - just a friendly house-maid ghost we think. Things take a turn for the sinister however when his hand is cut by a closing window. When he tries to wash it the faucet gushes a torrent of scalding water. Mike was unsettled by the chocolates and toilet paper enough - now he is near hysterical and wants out. Yes, unfortunately this character has the backbone of a snail. Things only get worse as a crazed women pops out of the corners to slash Mike to death. This I thought was the scariest “apparition” the others, which are displayed in glorious Technicolor and flicker are almost laughable.
This is no unorganized conglomeration of ghosts however, as it seems to goal of this rooms evil presence is to drive Mike mad. It tortures him with scenes of his father, near the end of his life and his young daughter who has, conveniently enough, some incurable fatal illness. The room itself turns inside out - it floods, it snows, it is charred beyond recognition. But it is all inside his head. Mr. Enslin by this time is a nervous wreck and tries getting in touch with his divorced wife to get help. This is not the first person I’d call if I were in this situation if you get my drift, but after all he has lost his mind at this point and we can forgive him. After seeing The Shining I can not help but note the similarities. They are by the same author of course but I think he is reusing his material a little too much. This movie seems to be just a condensed version of that classic - condensed in every way; from a hotel to a room, from a period of several weeks to one hour. There is also the familiar triad of father, mother, child & a limited number of characters. To its advantage it takes some interesting turns & the set designers really have done an excellent job bringing the story to screen.
2 1/2stars

Abre Los Ojos

(1997)
Directed by: Alejandro Amenabar

Eduardo Noriega - Cesar
Penelope Cruz – Sofia
Chete Lera – Antonio
Fele Marinez – Pelayo
Najwa Nimri - Nuria

This director is fast becoming one of my favorites. Maybe it is because he keeps you guessing until the end or perhaps it is his down-to-earth characters going through extremely difficult circumstances. Its probably all these things that make me like this director’s style.

If you’ve seen Vanilla Sky then Abre Los Ojos will seem very familiar to you. In fact Vanilla Sky is pretty much just the English version (as opposed to a Spanish version set in Madrid), though not as good (I have seen it). Penelope Cruz stars in both and does an equally good job in both.

As in both stories a wealthy heir playboy Cesar, falls for Penelope Cruz’s character Sofia. He doesn’t really care that his best friend Antonio likes the girl. At first he just sees her as a prize but supposedly falls for her. Antonio is altogether a little too forgiving and we feel that the scales will soon tip out of his favor - but instead of tipping they crash literally. Cesar’s psycho “girlfriend” Nuria picks him up and purposefully drives off the road smashing the car into a wall. Now the once handsome Cesar is disfigured horribly and Sofia wants nothing to do with him. But then again, Cesar wants nothing to do with himself - he thinks he is a monster and sulks his days away. The doctors can’t do anything but give him a mask to wear - which I would think would also make people stare.

Anyways we learn all this as he is talking to a psychiatrist at an insane asylum. We also learn that he found out about cryogenics. ***warning plot spoiler*** He doesn’t want to live his life anymore and out of desperation signs a contract where his body is frozen cryogenically. In addition he takes the option of having dreams that “continue” his life while he is indefinitely frozen. The dreams “splice” into his memories so that it seems like he never died. But we know something is utterly wrong anyway when Sofia stars falling for him and his friend is like “so what? She’s not that good anyway.” Yeah right buddy, she’s just Penelope Cruz. There is a clue to what will happen though, you just have to be observant. The finale takes him back to the cryogenics company where dying means waking up and he must make a decision whether to remain in a dream world or wake up to a new reality. This brings up the age old debate of how do we know that our lives really aren’t real and not some cleverly devised dream? (see The Matrix) After all when you are dreaming you don’t think it’s a dream, but rather you take it for reality. Well, that’s enough of this, I’m going to go to bed and wake up now…

3 ½ stars

Apache

(1954)
Directed by - Robert Aldrich

Starring:
Massai - Burt Lancaster
Nalinle - Jene Peters
Hondo - Charles Bronson




Apache is set out in the dessert southwest in the 1890’s and details the story of the last “fighting” apache Massai. It begins as a peace treaty is signed between the apache and the United States government by no less than Geronimo himself. Apparently the US thinks that he and his warriors pose too much of a threat amongst their people so they ship them on a train to Florida (I mean WHO would want to live there, right?). As it happens Massai is also on the train and soon being unable to consign himself to a life as a farmer in a far off land, he jumps the train as soon as he has the opportunity.

Massai lands in a strange world - St. Louis. He’s picked out with no great difficulty as soon as he arrives. An angry mob chases him out of the city and he is left to wander back to his homeland. Along the way he meets a Cherokee man who has taken up farming. Massai doesn’t believe his eyes (he thinks the Cherokee killed a white man and took his house). Times have changed and fighting won’t do any good. The Cherokee man tells Massai “I learned that the only way to live with the white man was to act like one.”

However we still have faith that Massai won’t give up his war drum just yet. If he did it would make for a pretty boring film. Anyways, after a grueling journey Massai finally reaches his people and is promptly handed in by his own chief. Massai has lost trust in everyone by now and has no one except the chief’s daughter who is willing to die for him (literally).

It is man against the world at this point. Massai becomes a one man army. Will he fight to the death or will love conquer in the end? It certainly didn’t end in the way I expected and that is one good thing about this film. It doesn’t try to portray Native Americans as bloodthirsty scalp-hungry renegades. You begin to see they have a reason to fight. They have been on this land for hundreds if not thousands of years and their very way of life is threatened.

Burt Lancaster does a good job as an Apache - even though no amount of makeup can make him look the part. There isn’t a lot of that broken English we hear from Native Americans in many westerns either. Lacking also are the typical chase and shoot-’em-up scenes. If you’re looking for a western that isn’t western and where the “Indians” aren’t the bad guys than this is for you.

2 ½ stars

Remaking The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

By Cinematographer Chriss Duddy using green screens has superimposed modern actors on backgrounds that were taken from the original film. In the process he has created a work that is still true to the original hallmark of German Expressionist film by Robert Wiene. The truly remarkable thing was that it was done in little over a week & on a limited budget.

Check out the interview and video:

http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/currentissue/8135.html

Preview - American Gangster

Though this site is mainly for movie reviews, every once in a while I'd like to highlight upcoming movies.
'American Gangster', coming to theater's November 2nd, stars two outstanding actors (and some of my favorites): Denzel Washington and Russel Crowe.

See the Trailer:
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/americangangster.html;_ylt=Ah7X2IrBIlCueCKysutWGplfVXcA

Read the Synopsis:
"Based on the life of drug-kingpin-turned-informant, Frank Lucas, who grew up in segregated North Carolina where he watched as his cousin was shot by the Klan for looking at a white girl. He eventually made his way to Harlem where he became a heroin kingpin by traveling to Asia's Golden Triangle to make connections, shipping heroin back to the US in the coffins of soldiers killed in Vietnam. He soon made upwards of one million dollars a day in drug sales. Lucas was shadowed by lawman, Richie Roberts, who finally helped bring the kingpin to justice. The two then worked together to expose the crooked cops and foreign nationals who made importing heroin so easy."

Nosferatu

(1922)
Directed by: F.W. Marneu
Cast:

Max Scheck - Count Dracula
Alexander Granach - Renfeild
Gustav van Wangenheim - Jonathan Harker
Greta Schroeder - Nina

I must say that this is the first silent film I’ve seen since I watched a Charlie Chaplin picture years ago. Seeing modern movies you are used to seeing rapid action and music that reflects the picture (the music that came with my DVD obviously wasn’t chosen very well, being ‘happy’ when the most evil Nosferatu was about to suck some serious blood, and dark and menacing when it didn’t need to be). Not having seen many silent films of this period I cannot say how it rated among them. Seeing it however gives one a good idea of the early years of film.

I’ve noticed several things in particular (besides the obvious lack of sound) that differentiate this from modern films. First there are very few cuts to close ups. Most of the action is portrayed as you would see it on a stage. Secondly, instead of cutting away long parts such as a stagecoach going down a hill, they will speed it up. This gives it a very comical effect, especially when people are involved. Third, the acting is all very theatrical, with extended gesturing and wildly expressive facial expressions. But you must remember that these actors where probably used to performing in front of a stage where the audience didn’t have the luxury of getting close-ups of their face and therefore had to use body language much more.

Now, down to the story itself. Nosferatu is based upon Bram Stoker’s Dracula. The count in this particular version is less “human” looking than I have seen any other Count Dracula. He seems to be more of a gigantic deformed elf than a human. The makeup is very good which makes him all the more menacing. Jonathan Harker is the young naïve agent hoping that travels to Dracula’s castle to help him secure land in Bremen (the town Dracula wants to live in). Dracula’s journey to Bremen aboard a ship is wrought with disaster as mice that are carried with have some sort of plague. The crewmembers die one by one either by the plague or the Count himself I surmise. At the end of the voyage there are none left. Jonathan Harker returns soon after to find a his wife Nina distraught. She was plagued by nightmares the whole time he was away and at time seems to be possessed. Somehow Nosferatu has made a connection with her through Jonathan. Soon the plague spreads through the streets of Bremen killing many villagers. Nina equates the plague with the evil Nosferatu who has coincidentally become neighbors across the street (he has a nice view into her bedroom by the way). After reading “the book of vampires” she becomes convinced that she can save the city by spending a night with the vampire.
Nosferatu comes to pay a not-so-neighborly visit to Nina after her husband fetches help. The count stays with her until morning and then, probably forgetting the time, can’t leave to the safety of his coffin before the sun comes up and obliterates him.
Despite its age there is no denying it as a trend setter for all Dracula movies to come. There is the usually biting in the bed scene & the marks on the neck. All it is missing are a few bats…

Seeing Nosferatu only makes me want to see other Dracula movies and compare them. But first I think its best to read the good old book by Mr. Stoker.

2 1/2 stars