"Nine" lofty attempts come up short (3.75/5)

I would be lying if I said I was a “fan” of Federico Fellini. I say this not because I don’t like him, but because I have only seen a few of his films (“8 ½” and “La Dolce Vita”) and it would be unruly of me to comment on his entire film canon. Yet, what I loved about “La Dolce Vita” and “8 ½” was Fellini’s ability to create a surreal and dreamlike experience. Never did it feel like they were constrained by the characters or even the plot; everything just seemed to flow on a breeze destined to the edge of imagination and the subconscious. This aspect is what I found completely enchanting about “8 ½” as its plot not only weaved moments of grandeur and hilarity, but moments of human discovery and sentimentality. Unfortunately, such a sentiment was rarely found in Rob Marshall’s “Nine” which is based off a Broadway musical incarnation of Fellini’s “8 ½”.

This is mostly disappointing because if there was ever the type of film that would lend itself to Fellini’s dreamscape, it would be the musical genre which is a genre that is built on grand moments that one would only hope to experience while asleep. Now, the synopsis of “Nine” is nearly the same as found in “8 ½”. Director Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) is struggling with writing his next film, which oddly enough begins production in a matter of days. Yet, as he battles writers block, Guido is having a little trouble with the ladies. More specifically he’s having a hard time balancing time between his mistress (Penelope Cruz), his wife (Marion Cotillard), and convincing his muse (Nicole Kidman) to star in his new film. With pressure mounting, Guido slips into what seems to be daydreams as he recollects his triumphs with the women of his life and films. It’s at this moment that Fellini’s “8 ½” takes flight as it moves from point to point at a manic pace; a point where reality can’t be discerned from daydream; a point where reality blurs.

Yet, in the case of “Nine”, director Marshall doesn’t accentuate the flights of fancy anymore than he deflates them. Certainly the musical numbers add a certain depth and introspection to Guido’s mind, but more often than not Marshall confuses a surreal moment with a flashy one; depth with breadth. Yes, the musical numbers, especially Fergie’s “Be Italian”, are interesting productions, but when confined mostly to Guido’s singular film set and with minimal setup, they’re only skimming the top of Guido’s subconscious. Now, this is not to say I came into the theater expecting the same level of depth found in “8 ½”, but with so many ideas to mine from Fellini’s classic, I couldn’t help but feel the film missed an opportunity to deliver an existential musical that would do its source material proud. This is only furthered by the fact that a few of the women characters are delegated to merely a few scenes, let alone any actual development, causing their connection with Guido to feel trivial.

And this is really quite a shame considering the terrific cast “Nine” boasts. The talent of Hudson, Kidman, and Dench are in many ways wasted. Thankfully the likes of Day-Lewis, Cruz, and Cotillard bring enough passion and zeal to make the film boil when Marshall’s attempts simmer. More specifically all three are able to bring a balance point between their musical and non-musical scenes, as they’re able to draw out their characters in nearly every aspect. Cruz is beautifully vulnerable as Guido’s mistress, while Cotillard delivers the best performance in the film as Guido’s wife, a woman grown weary of her husband’s backsliding. And to no one’s surprise, Daniel Day-Lewis delivers another great performance as he is able to capture the charisma and command a person like Guido possesses.

Certainly, Day-Lewis doesn’t have the best voice (not that I’d be the best judge of that) but what he lacks in range or overall singing talent he makes up for with an undeniable bravura. It should also be no surprise that when Cruz, Day-Lewis and Cotillard take charge, the movie is far more effective and worthy of our attention. It’s with these three actors that we see the potential the film had to offer; the potential found in Fellini’s “8 ½”. Yet, through all of its shortcomings, “Nine” is still an entertaining and somewhat provocative take on love and the construction of an artist. Who knows, maybe with a different mixture of songs, less flash and beefier roles, “Nine” could’ve held up as its own vision, as well as be comparable to Fellini’s. But the film can only dream that it reached such a peak.

Just for kicks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA9DeCHfzgw

"Sherlock Holmes" sails on its leading duo, but dips on its premise (3.5/5)

From the very beginning, "Sherlock Holmes" was never going to adequately replicate Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's smart, structured mysteries. Whether it was the casting of Robert Downey Jr. or the hiring of Guy Ritchie as director, all signs pointed to anything but a throwback version of Sherlock Holmes. This is especially true considering that director Guy Ritchie's methods can be classified as fast and erratic, which definitely doesn't match the slow build up found in most Holmes tales.

Yet, for the day and age we live in, one that is more dictated by a faster pace and weird fetish for big explosions, it would've been silly for me to expect a Holmes film along the lines of a "Gosford Park", so I can't fault Warner Bros. for succumbing to public demand. With that being said, I can fault them for using a shoddy script. The key to any Holmes story and any mystery in general is that the plot itself is inspired and actually full of intrigue. If the plot is not deep with unnerving or sleuth like moments, then it isn't a mystery at all. It's simply a pretender. Furthermore, without a mystery present, then a character like Holmes is rather trivial since the whole point of his existence is solving rubric cube like crimes. Unfortunately, the script renders the character of Holmes useless because there really isn't a mystery present for him to solve. Instead, the screenplay falls back on the conventions of a tent pole blockbuster as it's not interested in creating a combination of mental and physical conflict for Holmes. No, it's merely focused on honing or playing up the physical prowess of this 'new' incarnation.

So, instead of building us to a villain or down a spiral staircase of mystery, we know everything we need to know. No intrigue, no twists, no nothing. If anything it plays out like your basic good vs. evil story arc. This would've been much easier to swallow had the screenplay actually created an interesting villain, but by the end when Holmes offers his solution monologue, the film's villain Lord Blackwood seemingly had nothing going for him to even begin to think he was a worthy adversary. Obviously this only further cements Holmes as an astute detective, but also cheapens everything that lead up to the films anti-climatic last scenes. It almost feels like the films plot would be better served for either a short story or a subplot versus sustaining an entire feature length film. With that being said, where the story lacks, the film's incredible cast and kinetic direction pick it up when it needs it the most.

As most people probably would expect, Robert Downey Jr. gives another charismatic and funny performance as Sherlock Holmes. He's cunning, smart, and most of all has a wit that would seemingly match the level of his I.Q. Found alongside Downey Jr. as Holmes straight man Watson is Jude Law, who's subtle candor often surprises with hilarity and true moments of "kick ass". Both Law and Downey Jr. play extremely well off each other, as they create a duo that in many ways matches the chemistry found between Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels in "Dumb and Dumber". Although I guess this would be the polar opposite in regards to the level of intelligence. Assisting Law and Downey Jr. in ramping up a stale script is director Guy Richie, who despite my prior doubts does a pretty good job with the material as he injects a sense of urgency and life into the film. Such an example would be how Guy Richie demonstrates Holmes breakdown of not only a crime, but also his fighting abilities. Using slow motion (a common tool used by Richie in the past), Richie is able to aptly run through Holmes thought processes in a way that is not only stylistic, but fun to watch.

In the end, "Holmes" is certainly a fun film to watch. There is action, comedy, and a great score, but the problem is that the fun is disrupted by a plot that is bland and doesn't differentiate itself from typical blockbuster fodder. Furthermore, the film's script lacks any kind of mysterious punch to truly challenge the intelligence of Holmes and the viewers. Sure Holmes and Watson may come to a few action packed challenges, but they lose their luster when in the end there was no real danger and no substantial challenge worthy for these literary heroes.

"Avatar" will make your jaw drop (4.25/5)

The imagination is a tool that is always available. It's a tool that can whisk a person away in a matter of seconds. It's from imagination where worlds and stories are created. Yet, although our imagination knows no bounds, technology does. That's why in the world of film when there is an advancement of technology it's always exciting because we have come that much closer to what seems like the unattainable: capturing the entire scope of our imagination. Well, we've come many, many steps closer with "Avatar", a film so rich and grand that it will surely amaze you at the heights it achieves.

As indicated, "Avatar" left me stunned and I was one of the few people who was skeptical of Cameron's hype machine. Yet, from the opening minutes to the very end, I was amazed by the special effects mastery that Cameron and his team unleashed on me. The way I felt is how I imagine film goers felt when they first saw King Kong come to life in 1933 or when Peter Jackson brought the Lord of the Rings to the big screen. A world you thought would never come to fruition is suddenly letting you in; allowing you to become an inhabitant. Much like the work of Tolkien, James Cameron has created a world (named Pandora) full of beautiful and vibrant flora, fauna, language and characters. These aspects make Cameron's planet breathe as if it was living, but what's far more impressive than the depth Cameron creates is how seamless Pandora was. Honestly, nothing looked like it was shot via a green screen. Everything seemed natural and organic; almost as if Cameron himself scouted the location and shot the film there.

This idea of the film being seamless further immersed me into the world Cameron constructed, as nothing had me doubting that this place really existed. To further the experience of Pandora, Cameron also cleverly incorporated the use of 3D technology for the film's entirety. Certainly films that have incorporated 3D techniques have done so merely as a gimmick to create a singular scene "jump" out at the audience, but "Avatar" is different. Instead of making body parts or anything else jump out at the audience, Cameron does something quite unique: he invites the audience into the film. Yes, there are some parts where the film "jumps" out, but in all respects Cameron has used 3D in an extremely effective way by seemingly putting the world within your grasp and around your head. For me, this aspect created many moments of whimsy where I felt I was actually there on Pandora or stuck in the middle of a battle scene. It's one thing to create a world, but to transport an audience there is a feat few filmmakers have accomplished and Cameron does so in spades.

With the fantastic special effects aside, one of my biggest concerns about "Avatar" was the script. More specifically would the visual spectacle outweigh the story? This was mostly a concern because of Cameron's previous endeavor "Titanic", but also because the film's story arc is a retread on many films. Well, I'm happy to say that although the story of "Avatar" is very familiar, Cameron manipulates it just enough to create an identifiable and heartfelt story. Sure, there are moments of cheese filled dialogue and sometimes Cameron indulges in the melodramatic, but the story has enough build up and character development that I couldn't help but get swept up in the emotion of this intergalactic romance.

Of course the story is the most important aspect of any film and Cameron crafts a good one, but what's the most important, at least in the case of "Avatar" is that it has set a new standard in special effects. Nothing about the special effects shouts "$400 million". Instead it comes across as a real and tangible world with no hint of manipulation. It only consists of you, its language, its inhabitants, and its history. Never has a film (maybe aside from the Lord of the Rings Trilogy) come along and truly created a world so authentic and full of life. To say seeing "Avatar" is an experience would be an understatement; it's the closest we will ever be to our wildest dreams.

"Public Enemies" is an exceptional and more romantic gangster flick (4.25/5)

There have been many gangster/mobster films to have come and gone through the course of time. All have seemingly had the slick production values, bombastic scores, and thousands upon thousands of bullets blazing through a dark night. These certain attributes certainly work their way throughout Michael Mann's "Public Enemies", but there is something different about Mann's gangster flick: it offers a tender side to the American gangster.

But, before we get to that point let's talk about the film as a whole. The film opens up in 1933 as we follow bank robber John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) breaking out of a prison with relative ease. From there he robs a few banks and through his unscrupulous actions, catches the eye of J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup),whose rather newly founded organization (something called the FBI) is desperate to make Dillinger a defining catch. From this comes the introduction of Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) the man assigned to lead the FBI to glory and bring John Dillinger to justice. This sets off a game of cops and robbers between Purvis and Dillinger. This type of story, with both ends of the law caught in a game of cat and mouse, isn't new territory for Mann who explored such a tale in his crime epic "Heat". Granted his explorations into the relationship between the law and unlawful was much more on point in "Heat", Mann still delivers an interesting, if not great perspective on those who enforce laws and those who break them.

Of course aside from the law based tug of war Mann has crafted, a lot of credit must be given to Bale and Depp who create fascinating and what seem to be accurate portrayals of their characters. Bale is great as Purvis, a man who finds himself increasingly adjusting his own morals to make the ends justify the means. Bales counterpart Depp is pretty good too. As a matter of fact, Depp is so charismatic and charming, that he makes it extremely hard not to root for John Dillinger. Depp's great performance was further cemented when I watched a highlight reel of Dillinger and I must say, Depp didn't play Dillinger anymore than he completely channeled him. Yet, the most interesting aspect of "Public Enemies" (and oddly enough where the best performance comes from) is not entirely on the chase of John Dillinger. No, as I alluded to earlier, it's the romantic side of Dillinger. Amidst all the bank robberies and the vicious hunt by the FBI, Dillinger meets a woman by the name of Billie Frechette who is played by Marion Cotillard. Cotillard without a doubt has the best performance in the film as she delivers the emotional core to the final moments of Dillinger's saga. Her character not only allows us to see how vicious and desperate the FBI was in catching Dillinger, but also to see a sensitive, humanistic side of Dillinger. I'm going to go even further and say that the best scenes were not the bank robberies or a gun fight. Instead, the best scenes were between Cotillard and Depp (Billie and John), as they are full with great chemistry, romance, and tragedy.

But don't worry about "Public Enemies" being a 'soft' and completely sensitive film. Despite my many uses of the word "romantic", there is plenty of violence and battle wounds to list this film as a 'gangster film'. Yet, there is a little more at stake here than time capsule-esque set pieces and gun battles. There are questions about the law, but most importantly "Public Enemies" is more focused on humanizing the legend of John Dillinger versus sensationalizing it which is something most gangster films fail to even consider.

"Whatever Works" doesn't really work (3.25/5)

It seems like there was a point in time where Woody Allen could seemingly do no wrong. With films like "Annie Hall" and "The Purple Rose of Cairo" in his canon, Allen was the go to guy for comedic ingenuity. Yet as timed passed on, Mr. Allen has seemed to lost his touch. Certainly over the last decade he's made a few good films ("Match Point" and "Vicky, Cristina, Barcelona"), but none have even come close to capturing the magical run Allen had from the 70's to the mid 90's. As much as it dismays me to say it, "Whatever Works" is more of the recent Woody; not the classic Woody.

This is all the more surprising considering that "Whatever Works" was a script Allen has been sitting on for years; one he wrote during what was seemingly his prime. Yet, one would wonder why he was sitting on a script for over thirty years. Was it because it truly wasn't a good piece of work? For the most part yes. "Whatever Works" is an underdeveloped comedic contraption that plays out like a disjointed sitcom. The film follows Boris Yellnikoff (Larry David) who, before he makes a failed attempt at suicide, comes to see life as a thread of worthless moments strung together. People, love, religion, etc. are all worthless in his worldview. This is a rather bleak view, especially when Boris is nearing the end of his life, but on a random night, Boris comes across a young Mississippi woman by the name of Melodie St. Ann Celestine (Evan Rachel Wood) sitting in a garbage pile outside of his apartment. Melodie is far from home with no place to stay, so she convinces Boris to let her stay at his place.

From this point on there is a considerable bit of entertaining banter between Wood and David, but things turn dull when Allen approaches a plot point that seemingly mimics his life. This all happens while Allen tosses on subplots that involve the exploits of Melodie's parents who come to the door of Boris in search of their daughter. I understand the point Allen is trying to make with the film and its varying plot points, as he muses over the randomness of life as well as how people reason, but the film as a whole never fully connects. Instead of creating a film that's zany with some restraint, Allen just lets everything spiral out of control into a somewhat, philosophical funny mess.

Even though I think the film is extremely half-baked, I'm going to slightly contradict myself by saying the film was able to put a consistent smile on my face. This was not due to the script or even most of the cast, it was brought on by the full hearted efforts by Larry David and Evan Rachel Wood who give performances that light up the screen. To no one's surprise David plays a neurotic extremely well, and Wood is simply adorable. When together,both have a chemistry that is endearing and refreshing.In all honesty I could watch a movie with just those two interacting. But, this aspect is also what makes the film even more disappointing considering Allen wasn't able to place these performances in a tighter, more cohesive film. It's almost as if they go to waste. I guess that would be the common issue with "Whatever Works": it's all kind of a waste. Aside from the performances by Wood and David, this is a project that Allen should've kept on the shelf.

"Precious" soars on its performances and honesty (4.25/5)

Someone once said to me that they only go to the movies to escape from everyday life; not to embrace it. I guess that is a rather valid statement. After all, if someone wanted to experience the trials and tribulations of life they simply had to look at themselves. But our own lives are not representative of anyone else's but our own. Much like books, newspapers, television or any other medium, film not only allows a form of escapism, but opens us up to different walks of life. Such a life is that of Clarice Precious Jones, the title character of writer/director Lee Daniels' "Precious".

"Precious" tells the tale of a 16 year old girl who lives an un-charmed life. When the film opens up, Precious is living in Harlem in the late 80's. Precious can't really read or write and she's pregnant with her second child. Because she is pregnant, Precious is suspended from school and is coerced into going to an alternative school so she can get her GED. To make matters worse though, her second child has come at the hands of her father, who has used her as a means to contain his own sexual desires. Lastly, as if things could get any worse, Precious has a volatile relationship with her mother who verbally and physically abuses her on a day to day basis. Things look very grim for Precious, yet what Precious has is the intent to live a better and more loving life, a life where she is a starlet; loved by everyone in the world. It's this ideal and her desire that propel her past acts of abuse and rape. Even if it may seem far off considering the circumstances, it gives Precious a reason to breathe.

And it's this desire that pushes Precious to change her life. Such a change begins when she goes to the aforementioned alternative school and finds herself in a class that pushes her to not only grow from an educational standpoint, but one that challenges her to see that she is worth something after all. It's at this point, where there is a struggle between Precious' moments of jubilation at school and trials of hell at home, Lee Daniel's film succeeds. It succeeds because Daniels is able to effectively demonstrate the affects a loving or a monstrous environment can have on a person. Playing out much like a psychological case study, Daniels creates a gritty, stirring look at not only inner city life, but also abusive relationships and he does so with grace. Never does he make the character of Precious seem pitiful or overly sympathetic. Instead he is able to create three dimensional environments and characters, where one can not only breakdown how Precious came to be, but also how her main abuser (her mother) progressively became a monster.

This notion is especially important considering it keeps "Precious" from becoming your typical 'after school special' film. It rarely goes for those overly dramatic moments, it doesn't offer up sage like wisdom at the end about socioeconomic status, and it doesn't hang its characters on one note stereotypes. It's a living, breathing piece of life. Now, this is not to say that Daniels has crafted the perfect film. At times some of his scenes slip into the melodramatic, but when he fails, it's the performances that keep his worst scenes a float. Featuring a cast full of many surprises (i.e. Mariah Carey, Lenny Kravitz, Mo'Nique), "Precious" is a film full of strong performances. Yet, none are better than that pf Gabby Sidibe and Mo'Nique, who play Precious and Precious' mother respectively. Ms. Sidibe's performance is quite amazing considering this is her first real acting role. Sidibe is not only able to handle the tough material, but she is also able to create a character that is authentic and real; not a Hallmark movie event in the waiting.

Accompanying Sidibe in the rank of great performances is Mo'Nique who delivers a tremendous turn of her own. Mo'Nique, mostly know from her comedic performances, will turn heads. Her performance is so dark and so intense, it honestly made me wonder if this was really "the Mo'Nique". Her performance is one of the more complex roles in the film and she flat out owned it. In many respects her character could've come across as just a villain, but as demonstrated in her final scene, Mo'Nique is able to create a character that goes beyond a villain and becomes a faulty human being with major psychological issues who we can on some level sympathize with. If anything Mo'Nique's performance is representative of the entire film: it refuses to be a film that takes the easy way out with cliché archetypes and cable television dramatics.

"Precious" is quite harrowing, and most people will walk in knowing the film will not be tied up into a pretty bow, but that's what most endearing about precious. It's not escapism, it's real life. It shows us a life we've probably only seen from a stilted perspective. Furthermore, it allows us to not only search for a sense of hope within anguish, but to also appreciate our own lives. After all, things could always be worse. This aspect is what makes films like "Precious" a worthy experience. Certainly, it's a hard watch, but one that's all the more enriching and powerful as it opens us to a life that is just as troubling, but just as hopeful.

"Funny People" is funny, but left a little bit to be desired (4/5)

Judd Apatow has accomplished what many directors have attempted but failed to do: blend raunchy comedy with a moderate dose of heart. As seen in "Knocked Up" and "The Forty Year Old Virgin", Apatow is able to create a hilarious and poignant romp that doesn't treat its characters or setup like a complete joke. With each of his films, Apatow has seemingly increased his flair for real life dramatics, while still maintaining his dirty joke mantra. This is why it should come to no one's surprise that Apatow's newest film "Funny People" has a storyline that is far more serious and adult than his previous endeavors. After all, the film takes a somewhat dark look at life and death, as its main character George Simmons (played by Adam Sandler) is diagnosed with a rare, deadly blood disorder.

So, first off I'd like to commend Apatow for taking a risk with this film. He is branching out and in many respects growing as a writer and director. Surely he could've stayed content with writing dick jokes and banking $100 million at the box office, but there is something quite bold in his effort. Certainly "Funny People" isn't a perfect film, but it has moments of brevity that I never really expected out of Apatow. This is not only a testament to his writing ability, but also his ability as a director to contain and maintain a scene and his actors. His ability to get the best out of his actors is best demonstrated in the performance of Adam Sandler, who shows a depth and range that he has only effectively reached in "Punch-Drunk Love", a film that channels Sandler's boyish rage into fits of love. That same rage is channeled here, but in a more subdued way;one that Sandler's character aims at himself as he fills with regret. With such a character that bounces in between self pity and anger, Apatow and Sandler could've created a character devoid of any sympathy, but alas Apatow and Sandler handle the character with grace and dignity as they flesh him out into a tragic figure with reasoning. We come to understand him as fragile goods.

Aside from a direction standpoint, Apatow demonstrates that he knows how to write drama , but also shows he is a little rough around the edges. I say this entirely because "Funny People" feels like two different movies rolled into one. The first half of the film follows George Simmons as he comes to grip with his now fading life, while befriending Ira Wright (played effectively by Seth Rogen), an aspiring comedian looking for his big break. The two create a bond that is quite moving and consistently funny as they ponder over the "what was" and "what could've been" in regards to their lives. This half of the film is where Apatow is at his best as he balances the morose idea of death with the hilarity and awkwardness of everyday life. Even more so, Apatow delivers a rather introspective look at not only fame, but also the construction of a comedian. Granted, we've seen the ideal of fame placed on the cross numerous times, but very few films have deconstructed it in the vain of a comedian. This different vantage point allows for the first half of the film to be a breath of fresh air.

With me now done gushing over the first half of the film, I must say that the second half is definitely weak. The last half follows George (along with Ira) as he attempts to regain the love of the one girl who got away, Laura (played by Leslie Mann). Now, this particular half gets my respect because it refuses to create a storybook ending for George and in many ways is a great challenge for Apatow's characters, but it ultimately feels like the love story of another movie. There are certainly great moments, but when considered in its entirety, it lacks a proper segue, or any legitimate set up from the first half. Certainly we know George and Ira, but they're the only established parts of the half. George's love interest Laura never has a full introduction prior to this point and suddenly she is whisked in with George and a redemptive love story begins. Now, had Apatow or his editor addressed this issue, the film would've been cohesive and one entity, yet this aspect was not achieved. I must reiterate that my knocking of the second half doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. It was certainly rushed, but I actually liked it to a degree. Hell, I would even go as far to say that it's funnier than the first half, but when looked at in comparison to what came before it, the experience of the second half is a disjointed one at best.

This notion makes me a little depressed considering that if Apatow would've honed in on the second half and created a proper arc regarding the character of Laura, "Funny People" would've arguably been the best comedy to come out of this decade. Obviously the film is funny which should be expected, but had the dramatic flair matched across the board, it would've truly been a crowning achievement for Apatow. Instead, we're left with a flawed film that seems like two different pieces from two different pies. But, Apatow's ambition, the performances, the jokes, and a stirring first half make up for a disjointed, if not amusing second half. Certainly nothing to be ashamed of Mr. Apatow.

von Trier's "AntiChrist" made me say "What the f**k?", but in the end left me asking "Whats the point?" (3.25/5)

Last May, Lars von Trier's film "AntiChrist" opened up in Cannes to a mixed reaction...of sorts. This really should come to no surprise considering that von Trier has been a controversial figure throughout his career, as his films have always conjured up some discussion about the subject matter at hand or von Trier himself. In regards to "AntiChrist", well it was business as usual for von Trier. Some people applauded "AntiChrist" for its audacity, others hated it and booed it for its vicious third act. Obviously any film that could divide a group of film auteurs and critics alike is certainly one that needs to be seen, at least in my mind.

"AntiChrist" tells the story of a couple referred to 'He' and 'She', played by Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourgh,whose child has recently passed away. Things are complicated based on the notion that their child fell to his death through an open window while 'He' and 'She' were having sex. With 'She' feeling some form of responsibility, 'She' begins to toil between grief and anxiety. With 'He' being a psychiatrist, 'He' attempts to work his wife through her grief. His attempts to cure his wife begins with psychobabble exercises, but this eventually leads to them to their cabin , aptly named Eden, where 'She' has strong memories regarding her now deceased son. While in Eden, 'He' and 'She' encounter many issues between themselves and the natural elements that surround Eden. I don't want to say they encounter paranormal activity, but in a way they experience other worldly events. Now, the first half of the film is tremendous. Von Trier sets up a rather complex premise with great ease. Through the great acting of his two leads and creating barren, desolate shots, von Trier creates an atmosphere that is both inviting and harrowing in its quietness. Hell, aside from the opening five minutes where von Trier laughably shows 'He' and 'She' having sex in slow motion while their child falls to his death, I'd say the film has one of the most effective setups I've seen in a film all year.

Yet, for as great as the first hour or so is, "AntiChrist" is just as bad in the second half. Granted, the film possesses some interesting theories and ideas as it pertains to religious symbols, sexual urges, and the treatment of women during witch hunts, but it all never comes together. Instead of creating a film that can be explained in many ways (i.e. Synecdoche, New York), von Trier has created a film that makes me question him more than the film and characters. For example, on some level I can't help but question whether or not von Trier himself is misogynistic. I of course would never go to great lengths to say he possesses such a perspective completely, but the last half of the film suggests he doesn't get along with women to some degree. This is most notable in the fact that the last act works on the notion that all women are naturally evil and the downfall of man. But the most troubling aspect about the film regards the last twenty minutes where it seems von Trier has to rely on shock instead of his writing abilities.

With his film already spiralling out of control von Trier attempts to create a lasting effect through genital mutilation and the uncontrollable sexual urges of 'She'. Such scenes specifically revolve around 'She' cutting off her clitoris with a pair of rusty scissors, 'She' masturbating an unconscious 'He', causing him to ejaculate blood, and 'She' randomly running outside and masturbating in a stretch of grass. Obviously seeing such things on screen for a film that in many respects had no gore or over the top moments up to that point, is jarring. Yet, once the initial shock wears off the question becomes what was the point behind these needlessly explicit scenes? In all honesty there really wasn't any point, and this once again makes me question von Trier. Did he think his story really couldn't grasp the audience without it? It was these pointless acts of violent indulgence that really made me not care for the film and really turned a great, atmospheric thriller into a cheap knockoff.

All that was laid out in the first half of the film was wasted. The whole setup, the fearless and tremendous performances from Gainsbourg and Dafoe, the hauntingly beautiful cinematography, and most of all my interest, were thrown to the wayside in favor of modern day horror tactics. In the end, it doesn't seem like von Trier was interested in making a statement about life, death, etc. anymore than he wanted to stir up controversy. What a damn shame...

Haneke's "The White Ribbon" fails to give us answers and is all the better for it (4.25/5)

Let me start off by saying that I'm not a huge Michael Haneke fan. I don't hate him by any means, after all, many of his films (like Cache and Funny Games) raise a lot of thought provoking questions, yet at times I feel Haneke gets bogged down in his own fascination with the mundane. Such an indulgence often makes his films a slow, agonizing burn as many of their scenes go on for far too long, reducing any form of tension Haneke has established throughout. Yet, as I try to do with any movie, I checked my preconceived notions and bias at the door, and treated the film as its own entity. As I finished watching Haneke's newest venture, "The White Ribbon", winner of the Palme d'Or, I couldn't help but feel some form of elation. Finally, I found a film by Haneke that I truly didn't hate or see as a missed opportunity.

Certainly the film plays to many of Haneke's previous work, more specifically capturing the human state during violent or tumultuous times. "The White Ribbon" follows the citizens of a German village pre World War I, as they try to comprehend a string of mysterious events that plague the place they call home. Some of the events have potential faces placed to them, but many of them are acts of ritualistic violence whose perpetrators go unknown. As demonstrated in his film "Cache", Haneke is a writer who can lead the viewer in many directions by establishing angles and motives between his characters. With such an ability Haneke is always able to leave the viewer with the burden of determining who did what and why. Obviously since "The White Ribbon" has a cavalcade of characters within the village, the viewer is left with the ominous task of determining who should be damned, but it's all the better for this as it actively engages the viewer to look back in order to determine what will never be an easy answer. So, in many respects, Haneke places us in the framework of a neighborhood not much different than our very own where will we point our fingers in every other direction given the proper event and chance.

Aside from this "whodunit" aspect, Haneke's film also works on another level. More specifically, it depicts the rise of fascism and the birth of those who served under the Third Reich during World War II. Through the violent and at times demeaning acts of their parents, many of the village's children yield to subordination like dogs sitting at their masters request, revealing a characteristic that many could argue was prominent during Hitler's reign as his Nazi soldiers proudly submitted to their Fuhrer's desire. Not only does this particular layer add a bit of historical context for "The White Ribbon", but demonstrates the influence one's society or even personal contacts can have on a person's behavior. Whether it's through paranoia, religion, or actual facts, the actions of today will be the repercussions of tomorrow.

But, for as thought provoking and engaging as "The White Ribbon" is, I feel the film falls short of perfect. In some regards, the villager's response to the acts of violence surrounding them seems underwhelming. There are certainly moments where villagers question the heinous acts, but never do they push the envelope or become too inquisitive about the events. This is especially disappointing considering some of the characters Haneke has developed would go on a witch hunt, or in the very least investigate, the mysterious events. Accompanying this lack of urgency in the village, to no surprise, the film also has many dead spots where Haneke indulges a bit. Certainly said indulgences are kept to a minimum, but at times they create a few boring minutes that took me out of the experience.

And in all honesty, "The White Ribbon" was an experience I never thought I would get with a Michael Haneke film. It's a beautifully shot film that challenges the viewer to determine the guilty and the innocent, as it creates an environment full of rich symbolism and ideas that need to be considered from many differing view points. After all, things like belief, guilt, meaning, etc. can be drastically altered when examined through the perspective of another.

Ten Most Important Films of the Decade (Part Three of Three)

Finally, I'm ready to conclude my epic list. With six films down, it's time to reveal the final four films of my list. Also, along with my final four I will list a few honorable mentions because the final decision was pretty tough. Nonetheless, here is part three:

Borat: Released in 2006, Sacha Baron Cohen's "Borat" became in my mind the pinnacle of film comedy. It was edgy, smart, repulsive, and ultimately a film that had frenetic laugh, after frenetic laugh. Yet, the key pieces to "Borat" were the unsuspecting interviewees and Sacha Baron Cohen. By using real interview subjects, Cohen was able to capture authentic reactions that would not only make the audience laugh, but also mumble in disgust, depending on what kind of immoral bile spilled out. In many respects it's like a natural observation and with that, you also capture the unpredictability of human interaction. Certainly Baron Cohen coaxed many interviewees into behaving badly, but his ability to draw out a range of reaction and emotions allowed for almost a novel and unpredictable feel to the film. Obviously there have been comedies that had "mockumentary" narratives, but never had a comedy gone to the streets and desired to create a documentary (in some ways) based off of a farce. Finally, this brings me to Cohen himself, who creates a character that is not only naive and foolish ,but one that's very endearing, thus allowing 'Borat' to become something bigger than a caricature. And that's what I can say about "Borat"; it became a comedy film that went above and beyond what is typically expected. In many ways it redefined the concept of not only a comedy, but also in some ways a documentary. Using real people as the bait, "Borat" was able to expose a nation full of racial, sexual, and religious bias at the expense of our laughs. Of course we all know there is a seedy underbelly of America, but it was jarring to see it play out on the screen in the given context. Furthermore, it was just as shocking to see Sacha Baron Cohen push his character to an unbelievable height.

Clip:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYYoGnFpahQ

Children of Men: If you want to watch a film that is extremely harrowing, but uplifting then you'll find few better than "Children of Men". Directed by Alfonso Cuaron, "Children of Men" takes place in a not so distant future where humans can no longer reproduce. With the world being infertile and many political factions establishing, the world is falling apart and its gotten to the point that many people worship the young. Yet, amongst the chaos a seed of hope is found in a young woman who, through some miracle or work of science, is pregnant. From this comes the tale of a man who risks everything to protect a woman and her baby, as well as the future of mankind. The story itself is extremely gripping and taut, yet from an aesthetic and direction standpoint, "Children of Men" is well executed. With the use of handheld cameras, director Alfonso Cuaron immerses us in a world on the brink of extinction, which only propels us further into the drama that unfolds. Furthermore, Cuaron and his production team create a world, when compared to other films in the sci-fi genre, that is relatively stripped down and organic. This not only allows for a heightened sense of 'realism', but allows for the production pieces to compliment the story, not drown it out. Of course, the most important factor that makes "Children of Men" a film to be seen is its story. It has twists, it has action, it has moments of triumph and failure, and most of all it has a heart that continuously beats throughout. Very few films, let alone a sci-fi film, can develop a story that can work on many different levels. When it's all said and done, the film has astounding production pieces that immerses the viewer in the decay society sees itself in. Along with amazing cinematography and tremendous direction by Cuaron, "Children of Men" is one of the few films that can deliver a message about society without beating it to death. Oh and it also doesn't hurt when the cast is full of extremely good actors.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NikEQy1XxDE

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly: One of the most honest and beautiful films I've seen in my life. "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" is a piece of work that not only defies convention, but is poetry in motion. Adapted from the memoir with the same name, "The Diving Bell..." tells the story of Jean Dominique Bauby, the former editor of French Elle who had a stroke and subsequently was paralyzed from the neck down (aside from his left eye). This particular condition is known as "locked-in syndrome", where the patient can actively think, but can't speak nor move most of their extremities. Having no true form of communication, Bauby learned to communicate through the use of blinking his left eye and through this method, he wrote his memoir. The story itself is extremely powerful, and really needs no expansion but what pays off in dividends is how the story is told. First off, a lot of credit must be given to Julian Schnabel, who spits in the face of convention and creates a film that is almost entirely shot from the character's point of view ( I'd say about 60% of the film is in first person). This is unprecedented considering that very few films have attempted to deliver such a perspective. Yet, Schnabel's instincts pay off as he puts us in the shoes of Jean Dominique Bauby, allowing us to feel the claustrophobia Bauby himself felt as his body became a prison. Secondly, screenwriter Ronald Harwood deserves some kudos as well simply because his screenplay dares not to make Bauby into a saint. In both flashbacks (which isn't shot in first person) and Bauby's 'locked in' state, Harwood creates a character that is very uplifting, but one that is also fragmented and full of guilt. Of course we never truly come to dislike Bauby, but we don't come to love him on cheap sympathy points either. He is simply human. From this, an undeniable connection is made between the character and the audience, which makes the staggering last moments of Bauby's life beautiful, inspirational, and poetic. In the hands of Hollywood, this film would've been simple fodder dripped in sentimentality, but thanks to Schnabel and company, the film is a reflection on not only Bauby, but the potential of our own lives as well.

Trailer: www.youtube.com/watch?v=G69Zh7YIg8c
Clip:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrOB-E1lVBQ

Brokeback Mountain: With the success of "Brokeback Mountain", you'll see more films exploring the boundaries of love and the limits ( or lack thereof) it possesses. Now, have there been many other films that tackled a gay love story before? Yes, but none have really struck a chord as much as "Brokeback Mountain" nor has any handled the topic with such grace. Filled with complex and terrific performances from Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, "Brokeback Mountain" is a film that in many ways made homosexual relationships acceptable in mainstream film. This could be chalked up to the great screenplay, but Ang Lee and his actors deserve much of the credit as they make the film full of tenderness and sincerity. Never does the film feel like a gimmick; it's always a living, breathing ode to love. Whether it's the connection of Ledger and Gyllenhaal's characters or the true love and detail Lee shows for his characters, "Brokeback" is always full of love and life. Of course, the film deftly details the many stigmas associated with homosexuality, but at its core, "Brokeback" is just like any love story as it details the many jubilations and downfalls that would come between any couple. So in many ways, "Brokeback" is universal in its language. It's something we all could connect to in some fashion, regardless of our own notions and when a film can do that, it's truly a special piece of work. After all, love is love.
Trailer:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wug0aUcTJDE


Honorable Mentions:

4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days:I've seen a lot of foreign films from this decade, but what makes "4 Months" such a startling piece of work is that it is invested in creating drama from the small, quiet moments. There are no big scenes, or over plotted twists, instead it’s simply a film that details a friendship that is being pushed to the limits and the moral complications that arise from it. It’s gritty, well acted, and most of all possesses a sickening power.
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFeUS7hQq3k

Lost in Translation: A film that in many respects has become the blueprint for a lot of indie films. It’s quirky, small and full of idiosyncrasies. But the film sets itself apart with a deadpan performance from Bill Murray who elevates the already terrific material. The film adequately captures the communication breakdown many face in a foreign land, but more importantly it captures the communication breakdown that can occur between two people. With it being more so about friendship and connection than about love, the film has a broad appeal that most people can identify with.
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNn-2CTXzAw

City of God: The precursor to "Slumdog Millionaire", "City..." details the lives that reside in the slums of Rio di Janeiro. Full with a cast of colorful characters, director Fernando Meirelles captures many different vantage points, and ultimately creates a vibrant look at slum politics and living. Scary, funny, and always poignant, "City of God" is an exciting piece of film making.

Trailer:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioUE_5wpg_E

"G.I. Joe" is as dumb as they come...but it's quite entertaining (3.25/5)

During my freshman year at St.Cloud State, there were a lot of small moments I enjoyed. One of those small moments was the chance to peer review papers. In that first year, one of my general classes was writing intensive, so every other week I was getting the chance to read over someone else's paper. Obviously it was not only a great learning tool for the author of a paper, but also for the reader. Yet, aside from that politically correct setup, there was also another aspect that I enjoyed about peer reviews: the horribly bad papers. At times nothing bored me more than a paper written perfectly with correct MLA citations. What entertained me the most though was the papers that read like they were copied and pasted from a Wikipedia page that was edited by a monkey. Certainly they were a pain in the ass to mold into one comprehensive piece of work, but there was an idiotic, unrestrained charm to them. Taking this notion into consideration may help in understanding as to why I enjoyed "G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra" as much as I did. It was so dumb and so inconsistent that about halfway through I turned my brain off and just enjoyed the craziness as it unrolled.

I'll be perfectly honest, it didn't take me long to start rolling my eyes. Actually, right after the opening sequence, which lays a back story that rivals the depth of Transformers 2 (*end sarcasm*), I had no faith in seeing a great and stimulating action film. But, something funny happened...I started to laugh. From the over the top introduction of the "Joes" and their enemies, to the excruciatingly bad special effects, I really couldn't stop laughing or giggling about the littlest things. My god, I felt like a child watching a cartoon after a massive sugar rush. I must admit, that no matter how shallow the film ultimately was, it bolstered some impressively choreographed action sequences, especially one that contained a thrill ride through the streets of Paris. So, if you're an adrenaline junky, "G.I. Joe" is a film that will help you get your fix. Yet as fun as it was to watch things go "boom", the film is seriously deprived of any intelligence in both its own understanding of the world it resides in, as well as its character construction.

The previous notion should come as no surprise, but I feel Sommers and his screenwriters do something rather insulting: take their core audience to be morons. Such an insult is quite prominent in scenes that deliver "back stories" to some of the characters. Instead of simply insinuating through dialogue and character interaction, Sommers and company deliver flash back scenes that reiterate details that we already know. For instance, Sommers establishes that the character of 'Duke' has had a previous relationship with Ana (aka the Baroness). Sommers and his screenwriters initially show this through relatively scant dialogue, but instead of moving on, they make sure we catch their "hints" and pummel us over the head with a flashback that makes the relationships seem forced. Unfortunately, this happens quite a bit throughout the film between a few characters and is rather damning. It's almost as if Sommers and the screenwriters are saying "I don't think they'll get it unless we show them explicitly through a flashback; we'll give them visual proof such a relationship existed!" This lack of respect coupled with some of the dumbest character reasoning I've seen this year, makes the characters seem over the top. Obviously these characters can't be taken too seriously, but at the same time it makes them rather annoying and one dimensional, which contradicts the point of even having a back story in the first place.

Also, much like the shit storm known as "Transformers 2", there was a world logic that was non-existent in the film. I could draw up a list for you, but in all honesty, I'd rather not waste my time on that. Instead I'll let this review see its way out. Much like some of those papers I read back at St.Cloud, "G.I. Joe" is a frustrating mess, at least from a coherence level. Yet within the mess there is something kind of endearing and enjoyable to be had, as it attempts to toss ridiculous thread after thread at you; trying to make something work.

Ten Most Important Films of the Decade (Part Two of Three)

The next few selections are in many ways more mainstream than the previous three. Yet, there is a part of them that redefine their genre, as well as assist in introducing "casual" film goers to films they may not normally give a chance. Now, I give you part two of my list:

-Amelie: Probably the foreign film that made Americans appreciate foreign cinema a little more. In the discussions I've had with 'casual filmgoers', “Amelie” is constantly on their short list of foreign films they’ve seen and to their surprise, enjoyed. Hell, I’ll admit I truly didn’t appreciate foreign films until I saw “Amelie”. Such a discriminatory attitude towards foreign films usually begins with the notion that subtitles make foreign films a hard watch. So, in many respects, it was pertinent for a foreign film to come along that had a life of its own and carried the viewer past the ‘dreaded’ subtitles. Granted, I’d be lying if I said everyone will love “Amelie” upon its first viewing, but I feel most people would give other foreign films a shot once they experience “Amelie”. Much of this can be attributed to an adorable performance by Audrey Tatou who creates a character so lovable, even the coldest of hearts would have a hard time resisting her charm. But a lot of credit has to go to director Jean-Pierre Jeunet, who treats the film almost like a fairy tale. Told at a rapid pace and featuring a palette full of colorful and endearing characters, Jeunet creates a film full of wonder and intrigue. His use of the camera and colors adds such beauty to the city of love, but most importantly, he adds a zest of life to the film that is irresistible, even to those who hate reading subtitles.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj0CK_jgNns
Clip:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqT9kA1bcVQ


-The Dark Knight: The film that single handedly changed how comic book films are not only done, but how they're perceived by the critical mass. Most films of the genre are seen as simple fodder for the summer, but Nolan’s vision was bigger than that. Instead of relying on comic book convention, Nolan raised the bar and created a film that goes beyond the genre his titular character practically owns. On the outside looking in, the film looks like all of the other costume/super hero films: man dressed up in eccentric costume fights a destructive force. Yet, at its core, “The Dark Knight” grasps on to various themes that make the film resonate on many different levels, making the film edgy and far more effective than even the "indiest" of indies. When all of its themes and turns are taken into consideration, “The Dark Knight” plays out like a Shakespearean tragedy more than it does a superhero film. Much credit must be given to Christopher Nolan who had the balls to treat his characters like humans and not Saturday morning cartoon characters. In doing so, Nolan created a film that is not only full of adrenaline boosting action, but a film that strongly addresses the duality of man and the justice system. Oh, and it certainly didn't hurt that the film features great performances, especially from the late Heath Ledger. All in all, "The Dark Knight" is just as much a crime saga or Shakespeare tragedy as it is a comic book film, and it has laid a foundation that many 'superhero' films will mimic years down the road.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UBP2nXtRRo
Clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8PxG5zvgOM

-The Lord of the Rings Trilogy: There are three separate films here, but like the book, they should be treated as one entity. From a technical standpoint, this film is revolutionary, as Peter Jackson's WETA brings to life Tolkien's magnificent world. From the epic battle scenes to the tremendous construction of 'Gollum', Jackson makes a world we once could only imagine seem tangible and within reach. It would be an understatement to say the " Lord of the Rings" films raised the bar in regards to special effects, as they pushed this production aspect to the cutting edge. Yet this is not the only feather in Jackson and company's hat. "The Lord of the Rings", one of the most successful film franchises in film history, really made it seem cool for people to wave their “geek” flag high. There was a time where fantasy films involving elves, wizards, etc. were deemed as being nerdy, but this perception seemed to change with "The Lord of the Rings". Obviously the books had an enormous fan base to begin with, but anytime a film can reach past the fan base and 'convert' those who would normally never touch the source material, it truly is a special film. Now, not only did "The Lord of the Rings" bring an epic fantasy novel to the masses (as well as inspire other fantasy films to be green-lighted), it was one of the few fantasy films to be accepted, valued , and appreciated by critics who up until this point, never really seemed to put a lot of stock in fantasy films other than they were escapist fun. Yet, with its various themes and dark nature, "The Lord of the Rings" really showed the lengths at which a fantasy film can take an audience. With its state of the art of specials effects and devout screenplay adaptations, Peter Jackson’s trilogy made it ok to venture to another world and indulge ourselves in the lives of elves, wizards, and hobbits.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7YllAOqpF4
Clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr_i2w0W-ZM

Ten Most Important Films of the Decade (Part One of Three)

With it being the end of the decade, I feel I have an obligation of sorts to create some form of “best of…” list. Hell, everyone seems to be doing it, so why can’t I? As much as I’d like to do a “best of…” for every film genre, I really don’t have the patience for that. So, due to my lack of patience, I have settled on one over reaching category to tackle and that category is the “Ten Most Important Films of this Decade”. Now, I must begin this with a few caveats. This list doesn’t represent my favorite films of the decade entirely. Certainly some of my favorites of this decade (and in many respects all time) make the list, but most of the films listed are films that I feel defined or will define the next decade in film making. Most importantly though, we must keep in mind such a list of this magnitude is subjective to my tastes and my own understanding of said films. So, I ask you not to get defensive over my selections. After all, it is a matter of opinion. Without further ado here is part one of my list:

-Memento: Christopher Nolan's first real break, "Memento" is a film that defied narrative expectations and in many respects, paved the path for other screenwriters to create a non-traditional screenplay that played with time and uses of memory. Instead of working with a basic narrative which propels the viewers and characters from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’, “Memento” works its way backward. The film focuses on a man (Guy Pierce) who is searching for his wife’s killer. Such a quest would seem easy if it wasn’t for Pierce’s character’s amnesia and short term memory loss, which forces him to keep track of information through notes, tattoos, etc. Because his loss of memory, he has to continually trek through his notes to understand the present. So, the ending of the film isn’t as important as is the trek Guy Pierce’s character takes. Having a narrative playback such as this is not only a clever gimmick, but it creates a film where the viewer themselves can seemingly experience the main character’s struggles with the ‘unknown’. With a rubrics cube like script, Nolan creates a rough around the edges film that plays like a detective film, but instead of merely having the character piece together the puzzle, the audience is actively engaging side by side with said character trying to understand how they got to where they are.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbTMAffb0CA
Clip:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FdPYc2efxw

-Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: This film is in a similar boat as “Memento” in the sense that it’s a film that constantly manipulates time. Yet, “Memento” is rather easier in the sense that it’s linear in its ‘playback’, where “Eternal…” is quite disjointed as its plot pertains to the erasing of memories. With many of the scenes switching back and forth between the “dream/memory” world and the real world, it’s a film that many viewers will have to see multiple times to fully understand. Such attentiveness from viewers should be expected for a film written by Charlie Kaufman, but I feel if anyone hasn’t seen this film, they’re missing out. Personally I feel this is the one of the best screenplays written in the history of film, let alone the decade. It truly reinvents the “boy meets girl” scenario; a scenario that has recently been hard to swallow because of how formulaic it has become in the realm of film. Even more so, the film’s understanding of a real relationship and their possible hiccups is very rewarding, especially considering the superficiality that can be see in many films that try to capture the many characteristics of a loving relationship. To match Kaufman's labyrinth dream-esque script, director Michel Gondry is able to create a beautifully stunning film, while still pulling out great performances and chemistry from his leads, Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet. Now, even though “Eternal…” is deeply rooted in a sci-fi like premise, it has an extreme amount of heart and soul that grounds it in reality, as well as offers a fresh look at love that many films before it simply failed to do.

Trailer1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GiLxkDK8sI
Trailer2: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x15asx_eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mi_blog
Clip:http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3z1co_eternal-sunshine-row-row-row-your-b_shortfilms

-There Will Be Blood: In my mind this is the nearly perfect film. Even though I feel it’s a very misunderstood film, ultimately it will find its place in the film history books (if they exist haha) from not only a production standpoint, but from a thematic standpoint. Through the direction and writing of Paul Thomas Anderson, the film creates layer upon layer of not only characterization, but also thematic elements that viewers can debate about till their heart is content. The film itself is also rather daring in many of its exploits. One such exploit is the protagonist Daniel Plainview, who is by no means a good human being. Most films are based around one protagonist whom we can connect with and ultimately cheer for, but that’s not the case with Mr. Plainview. He is an extremely cunning and deviant man who is slowly losing a battle with his own personal demons and in essence, comes to represent the very things we hate and try not to be. Having such a despicable character as your lead is a tough sell, but PTA pulls it off as he creates a character that is just as interesting and complex as he is dislikeable. Accompanying such a polarizing character is an astounding and rather groundbreaking score by Jonny Greenwood, which more than adequately captures the inner demons brewing within Plainview. Now when you take the aforementioned components above and match them with extremely beautiful cinematography, a controversial ending and a chameleon like performance by Daniel Day-Lewis, “There Will Be Blood” becomes a visceral and intense character study that captures the pitfalls of a man whose capitalistic ideals consume his soul. It is truly an American classic; one that redefines how we not only look at a period piece, but how we look at how a protagonist is defined.

Trailer:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8q3TVQeVdM
Clip:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwkP7Gnp7ek
Score: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HjWIr80ln4 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSNGOpyWWOs

With "Drag Me to Hell" Sam Raimi shows Hollywood how it's done (4.25/5)

The horror genre is quite unique in the sense that people subject themselves to blood and terror simply to get a glimpse at the macabre and fear inducing monsters. I happen to be one of those people who loves to be challenged by a film and although I'm not a zealot of the genre, I do enjoy a film that can successfully make me squirm with fear. Yet, I have found that over the last twenty years or so, the horror genre has become a stale bore. The films that horror has to offer now seem to either be too interested in delivering cheap, one note noise scares or it's too invested in turning on those who have a sexual fetish for blood. If anything, the horror genre nowadays has me questioning it, not championing it. Where is the story? Where are the characters I should be caring about? And most of all, where is the ascension of tension?

I'm extremely pleased to say that I've finally found a horror film from the last decade (aside from a few) that I'm willing to recommend to folks who are looking for a more worthy film in the horror genre, and that film is "Drag Me to Hell", a throwback of sorts for director Sam Raimi. As you may or may not know, Sam Raimi's career took off with the cult classic "Evil Dead" which deftly blends horror and comedy into one bloody, hilarious ride. Much of the same could be said for "Drag Me to Hell". It's certainly dark, it's clever, and it's ultimately a fun ride. Granted, I don't think "Drag Me..." is as funny as Raimi's "Evil Dead", but its certainly a film that packs a respected punch in regards to graphic humor.

With humor aside, there is a lot "Drag Me..." does right. Firstly and in many respects most importantly, Raimi is able to create a protagonist that we can relate to or in the very least, understand her thought process. When any film, let alone a horror film, neglects this notion, the audience simply can't grow to like or care for the tormented protagonist, regardless if there is a knife wielding psycho chasing them. And, unlike most of the horror films seen in the last decade, Raimi's female protagonist isn't a piece of glorified sex meat. Or more specifically, when she's running from danger, her breasts aren't bursting out of her shirt. So, instead of casting the "hottest piece of ass" at the time, Raimi casted the beautiful and wonderful Alison Lohman, who delivers an understated performance full of innocence, that once again, only gets the audience more in tune with the protagonist's nightmare.

Ofcourse, despite our investment in Lohman's character and her safety, we're still looking for something to scare us and heighten the tension. Let's just say that Raimi fulfills such a hunger. Through minimal "jump scares" and good old tension building (through use of sound and camera positioning/shots), Raimi is able to create an environment that not only puts our protagonist in doubt, but us as well. When this is accompanied by a story that contains solid twists and turns, you have a film that can manipulate the viewer in dramatic fashion.

And I think that's the biggest positive about "Drag Me...", its scares and contortions are never cheap. Raimi sets up everything from character motivation to the actual scares themselves in a sensible and clever way. Nothing plays to horror convention, which is extremely refreshing to see in an age of horror copy cats and remakes. So, I say go out and rent "Drag Me to Hell". Turn off the lights, cuddle up with your significant other or pet, and watch a film that is not only sadistic, but also one hell of a creepy, good time.

"Sin Nombre" is a violent, redemptive look on escapism (4.75/5)

There have been a lot of films that have come and gone in 2009 that I have simply loved and will truly never forget. From "Where the Wild Things Are" to "Up", these are films that will fight to earn their right on my top ten films of the year. Yet, there are a few films that have gone beyond the aforementioned films and have seemingly sewn up a spot in my top ten. Such a distinction (regardless of how prestigious it may or may not be) belongs to two films: "The Hurt Locker" and "(500) Days of Summer." But, I'm happy to report that the elite group has recently changed after my viewing of "Sin Nombre," a Mexican film from the talented director/writer Cary Fukunaga.

As slightly eluded to in the title of this review, "Sin Nombre" is a film based on the notion of escaping to a better life, or at least a perceived better life. In the first half hour or so of the film, we follow two separate lives. In one strand, we follow the life of Casper, a gang member who is starting to have doubts about his place in the world. On one side, Casper has his ultra violent gang who depict a tight brother hood, but are willing to kill a member at the slightest misstep. On the other side, Casper is trying to develop a relationship with a young woman, but instead of building his prowess through his thug persona, Casper is desperately trying to conceal it, full well knowing budding romance and the gang life don't mix. Eventually these two aspects, independent of another with much effort by Casper, come to a head and deliver what is a violent epiphany for Casper.

Accompanying Casper's story is the tale of Sayra, a Honduran teen who is hoping to immigrate to the United States with the help of her father. Sayra is a conflicted young woman who sees opportunity in the United States, but doesn't know if the risk she's taking (trying to circumvent border patrol) is worth the potential of a dream. And to make things even harder for Sayra, her relationship with her father is practically non-existent since he has been living most of her life in America, raising another family. As you have probably guessed, the stories of Casper and Sayra eventually intersect, and when they do, it is one of the most powerful scenes in the film. In this one scene alone you get to see the taste of redemption Casper yearns for, all the while you know he has put a bounty on his own head. Yet, with nothing to lose and really nothing to live for, Casper finds his road to perdition through assisting Sayra across the border despite the many pitfalls that lie ahead of them.

Yes, because of its subject matter, Fukunaga mixes in splashes of violence and some thrilling "chase" moments, but the real drama comes from Fukunaga's characters as they continually develop throughout the film. With each trial and tribulation, both characters recognize a fear in one another and in many respects a form of trust that propels them to an ending that is at best bittersweet. Yet, no matter how one looks at the ending, it will be awfully hard for any viewer to not respect the determination and courage Sayra and Casper show. After all, they're risking everything just to have the slightest chance of escaping their previous lives. From this, comes the most rewarding part of the film: a much needed perspective on the trials and desires immigrants face coming into America. As seen in "Sin Nombre", the path is troublesome and paved with blood, sweat, and tears, but more importantly, it's built on this notion of achieving a form of freedom and opportunity not seen in any other country in the world. Even though some pundits say they steal "our" jobs or some even say they don't belong, but how can we deny people the very same goals and aspirations we too are reaching for, especially when they lay it all on the line?

"Where the Wild Things Are" is a film children will appreciate years down the road (4.5/5)

I won't lie; "Where the Wild Things Are" isn't the type of film that can be shown to all children. Certainly there will be an assortment of children who will love the film and enjoy it immensely, despite its lack of action and confectionary visuals, but the majority may not be amused. Yet, this doesn't speak for the quality of the film. As I have said numerous times and will continue to say, "Where the Wild Things Are" isn't a film for children anymore than it’s a film about childhood. By saying that, I'm willing to say that most adults or teens who have fallen in love with the book will get swept up in not only the nostalgia the film presents, but can also relate to the many ups and downs of childhood Jonze and company present on screen. After all, the adults and teens that see the film have successfully experienced the tumultuous time known as childhood. It’s a time where we all slowly become versed in the ways of the world, as well as understand how we personally work on an emotional level.

Aside from the "experience" factor, the film itself may also go over the head of younger viewers. It is rather abstract (although not nearly as subtle as I expected). The film opens up with Max running through a variety of emotions, which ultimately establishes his encounters with the 'Wild Things.' In one scene he is viciously chasing his dog with a fork, in another; to gain the attention of his teenage sister (who is drifting away) he starts a snowball fight with her friends that ends with him being buried in a pile of snow, which brings on a set of emotions that range from resentment to loneliness. And finally, in a set of separate scenes, Max's connection with his mother is tested as her attention for Max is redirected to her job and her boyfriend. All of this makes Max lash out and from this, Max escapes reality (more specifically runs away from home) to a place that he thinks he understands and will bring him happiness.

Through his imagination Max comes across the 'Wild Things', a motley crew of beasts with a hodge podge set of physical attributes. Yet what’s most pertinent to realize is that each one of the 'Wild Things' is a fragment of Max's psyche. And through his interactions with the "Wild Things," Max is able to not only understand the impact of his actions and emotional outbursts, but also the potential causes of said outbursts. Most importantly though, as Max interacts with each 'Wild Thing' and becomes more and more connected to them, his love and admiration for them sustains, despite how badly they may have treated one another in the past. This relationship with the 'Wild Things' creates a big payoff in the end, where in a poignant scene with his mother, Max learns that no matter what he does, or how sad he feels, he will always have an infinite amount of unconditional love to fall back on.

Now, the narrative side of the film is rather thin, which consists of dirt fights and fort building, but when considering the layers writers Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers put into the development of Max and the 'Wild Things', the film adequately captures the turmoil, the love, and the imagination that can develop within a child. In addition to the writing, Spike Jonze's direction (and complete vision) is beautiful and unrestrained, creating a very organic feel. From the gorgeous locations to the 'Wild Things' themselves, everything feels like it’s within reaching distance of reality. Much of this can be chalked up to the cinematography and the creation of suits, but a lot of credit should be given to Jonze who understands that when children imagine themselves in different locations or with different beings, it can feel and be just as real or organic as reality itself.

So, in the very least, many will find the film to be a welcoming piece aesthetically. Yet, the visuals and the overall feeling the film generates are enhanced with a terrific score that underscores the many emotions Max feels throughout the film (here is an ample sample http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9YrUqqSmaY). Arranged by Karen O and assisted by Carter Burwell, the film boasts a score that ventures from other fantasy films. Sure it may sound "indie", but its lack of traditional orchestra instruments and 'on key' children's choir give the film a raw, youthful, and unhinged sound that reverberates past the closing the credits.

All in all, "Where the Wild Things Are" is a triumphant piece of work that will ultimately please the adults more than it will the kids. Yet, I can't help, but think that down the road, as the children grow into adults, they'll appreciate Spike Jonze's ode to childhood a whole lot more.

"Goodbye Solo" is a quiet gem (4/5)

Written and directed by Ramin Bahrani, "Goodbye Solo" details the relationship that develops between a taxi driver named Solo and a random passenger named William. The relationship begins with William asking Solo to be his driver in a few weeks. Solo is apprehensive when he finds out that William only wants to be dropped off and not picked up at a unique location.

Through this interaction, Solo and William strike up what is almost an odd couple relationship. William is an old, white southern gentleman while Solo is a Senegalese 30 year old male with a budding family. William is played with reserved anguish by Red West, while Solo is played with great charm by Souleymane Sy Savane. Both are opposites of one another, but both eventually need each other as they fill a void in each other's lives.

William represents the discipline that Solo desperately needs, while Solo represents the love for life that William has come to loss. With a lesser writer and director, this relationship would sink into sentimentality, and a we would all learn a valuable lesson in the vain of "Full House." But, Bahrani is above that as he creates a relationship between two men that is sincere and full of understanding. Both know where the other wants to go and both understand what it takes to get there, its just a matter of whether or not they want to reach one another. And where a more sentimental film boasts big emotional scenes and acts of endearment, Bahrani and his actors are more in tune with the smaller, quiet moments that may not hit you at the time, but come on strong once the credits roll.

And thats the beauty of "Goodbye Solo", its built on those quiet, small moments we have with people. Sure, its much more memorable to go for broke on one scene and deliver an Oscar worthy crying scene, but we have to remember our lives are strung together by small little threads. If anything "Goodbye Solo" is representative of real life, where the small moments should be appreciated just as much as those big, life altering turns.

"Julie and Julia" is a sweet confection (3.75/5)

"Julia and Julia"

"Julie and Julia", a film detailing the life of Julie Powell (Amy Adams) as she tries to cook her way through Julia Child's first cookbook. As Julie Powell cooks her way to a self fulfilling state of triumph, we get a parrallel story focusing on Julia Child herself as she too is working her way to some sense of self worth.

With the film being broken into two, similar stories, one detailing Julie Powell post 9/11 and one detailing Julia Child in Europe post World War II, I was fearful one story would overpower the other. For the most part my fears were qualmed, but I must admit my interest was far more invested in the Julia Child half of the story. Much of this can be attributed to the drama that came through, more specifically Julia's battle to gain recognition in the kitchen, but also because of Meryl Streep's brilliant and vibrant performance. Although not the perfect imitation, Streep is able to adequately capture the many ticks of Julia Child from her high pitch, nasaly voice to her simple zest for love and cooking. She is simply the life of the film. Of course, additional credit must be given to Stanley Tucci who plays Julia's supportive husband Paul. Tucci is excellent in his role, as he and Streep create an authentic and endearing relationship on screen that is hard to resist.

On the other end of the time spectrum, the one concerning Julie Powell, things aren't nearly as interesting or moving, but Amy Adams does a fine enough job for the audience to have some sympathy for her character's plight. Her relationship with her boyfriend (played by Chris Messina) isn't nearly as involving as the one between Julia and Paul Child, but its serviceable enough to feel the highs and lows in their relationship as Julie frantically cooks her way through Julia Child's cookbook. Of course, the chemistry between Amy Adams and Chris Messina isn't nearly as good as Tucci and Streep, but there's an honesty in their portrayals that is sweet and tender. So, with peformances aside, one of the bigger faults of Julie Powell's story is that the drama itself is non-existant or if there is any, its solved relatively quick and easy. When placed against the trials of Julia Child, Julie Powell's problems just don't really seem that big of a deal.

This is not to say the film should be over dramatic, but when a film has two seperate stories that don't weigh equally in the dramatic department, the film itself can become stilted thus creating an uneven interest. Yet, despite all of this and the rather hum-drum story of Julie Powell, "Julie and Julia" is still a fun, lightweight film that can inspire some, even if much of it rests on the shoulder of the magnificent team of Tucci and Streep.