"A Single Man" is impeccably crafted (4.25/5)

Skepticism would be the one word to define my initial impression of "A Single Man" as it broke out of Toronto in early October. Not so much that Colin Firth's performance was highly praised, but because I couldn't fathom a decent film being constructed by a fashion designer, director Tom Ford, who seemingly had no experience in crafting film. I know it contradicts my usual mantra "every film has a chance", so go ahead and crucify me for that. While you're doing that I'm going to move on and tell you that my skepticism was unfounded and without a doubt, I was tremendously wrong. What I thought was going to be a glorified design film that just happened to have a great performance, ended up being a wonderfully shot film that aptly captures moments of devastation and resurrection. Also, as indicated, Colin Firth's performance is quite amazing.

But, let us start at the beginning. The film tells the desolate tale of George Falconer (Colin Firth), who after the death of his lover Jim (Matthew Goode)is having a hard time going on with his life. This isolation is further exacerbated by the fact that the film takes place in 1962 Los Angeles, a point and time in American history filled with paranoia and fear; as well as the lack of sympathy for those who fall under the title of homosexual. With this in mind, George internalizes his pain and love loss, as he trudges along day to day as an English professor. Yet, the film opens up on a day where things are going to change for George. It's on this day that he has decided to kill himself and rid his soul of the anguish that currently holds it down. Throughout this particular day, George plays it straight, as he knows by the end of it, he'll be gone. But, despite this rather grim plot description, I must say the film isn't entirely depressing. It's actually quite the opposite. Through the use of flashbacks and encounters with his neighbors and strangers, George's life begins to emanate different shades of colors. Suddenly what he once saw as a gray, dwindling world when he awoke, has become a world buzzing with technicolor. All of this leads to an end of the day that is both ironic and deserving.

The story itself is extremely introspective, but director Tom Ford does a fantastic job externalizing the beautiful and sorrow filled moments that fill George's day as he marches to death. With a wonderful understanding of a color palette, Ford is able to use color schemes as means for illustrating the breakdowns and breakthroughs George experiences. Whether it's when George is waking up, a moment where Ford uses a steel blue to conjure up George's stark disposition, or using a bursting glow of orange or red to show George's moments of brevity, Ford is always able to visually capture the mood and attitude of George's bleeding heart. Furthermore, Ford, along with his cinematographer Eduard Grau, is able to capture some beautiful and wonderful compositions in his shots. Some of which add a high amount of style that accompanies the depth Firth's performance possesses. In addition to this, Ford's fashion past seems to have assisted him well in the production aspect of the film, which boasts terrific designs that not only capture the early 60's, but also fills the film with fantastic style that matches the identities of each character. Once again, how foolish was I to sell Ford before I even gave him a chance? Apparently, I was very foolish.

Yet, the heart of the film resides in Colin Firth's wonderful performance. I have always respected Firth and I have always seen him as being a good actor, but he's opened my eyes to the depth he possesses, which is undeniably found in his portrayal of George. The character of George isn't one that expresses himself through dialogue anymore than he does through his body language. On the outside, Colin is able to capture George's daily struggle (and often faux performance) to muster the enthusiasm to live, but through his eyes and nuances we can sense a man who's on the way out both mentally and spiritually. In addition to the depressing aspect of George, Firth also allows for us to feel those small moments where George appreciates the life around him even if it's inevitably escaping him. A similar performance is also found from Julianne Moore, who plays George's good friend and former lover Charly. Typical to most of the characters Moore portrays, Charly is damaged goods and per usual, Moore is able to deliver a character with a vast amount of insecurities with great ease.

So, it should go without saying that the performances are the key entrance to the film, but it's Ford's artistic instinct that brings everything to life. Much like its protagonist, the film on the surface is bleak, but when looked back on, it's a rather romantic and lush look at love gained and lost, as well as the grieving process that all of us will eventually find ourselves wrapped up in. When coupled with a fantastic score, wonderful art design, and beautiful compositions, "A Single Man" is the type of film that invades mind, body, and soul through the bombardment of one's senses.

"The Blind Side" can't seem to balance its subjects (3.25/5)

Sports films are the kind of films that, no matter how cliche or familiar it is, people just simply fall in love with them. It's a rather simple formula: follow the life of an underdog, who is continually hounded by his peers, give him a sage and determination, then sit back and watch people get choked up as the underdog becomes the catalyst for a team's run to a championship. It's a tried and true formula that delivers an overdose of sentimentality. Said sentimentality is doubled when you base it around a 'true story'. So, it should come as no surprise that "The Blind Side" has formulaic moments and is heavy in sentimentality. Yet, it's this aspect of the film that I never really minded. Yes, the film does tell a 'true story' of football player Michael Oher who worked his way from poverty to NFL rookie stud with the help of a rich family, more specifically the Tuohy family. Without a doubt the life and times of Michael Oher is inspirational, as is the generosity shown by the Tuohy family, but the problem with "The Blindside" is that it can't strike a balance between both. Instead, it seems like Michael's story is merely a vehicle for the Tuohy's, rather than being the other way around.

This is an issue because we never fully come to know Michael's story and obviously his is the most interesting side to hear. Never do we see his difficulty growing up, never do we see how he adapts to his new lifestyle, and most of all we don't get a chance to see all of his accomplishments build up to a tremendous achievement: becoming an NFL player. Instead we get an over the top dose of charity from the Tuohy family.I must reiterate, the Tuohy family is gracious, but the film never seems to peg any kind of motivation for the family and their adoption of Oher. It just happens because they feel it's right. Or so the movie dictates. Director John Lee Hancock doesn't seem too interested in the voice of Oher, nor the motivations and inclinations of the Tuohy family. Instead he is far more focused on creating a glossy and smooth film that seemingly has no conflicts. No real perspective on the rich suburbs and the ghettos that encompass the Memphis landscape. No perspective on Michael's transition from being homeless to living in the house of a white family who, for whatever reason, are spending dime after dime on him. It's almost as if Hancock and his screenwriter were too afraid to disrupt the status quo; too afraid to instill some kind of cynicism in their work. It's through this lack of gull that Hancock loses Michael's perspective and from this comes a stilted interest in the Tuohy's charity which is an interest that is just blindly accepted.

So, the film floats easily along a constant breeze with no disruptions what so ever. Certainly there is a place in film for lightheartedness, but when the film seems to roll over Michael's entire life and struggle, it just feels manipulative and dishonest. Now, for as much as I have hated on the film, there are aspects that I enjoyed. The most obvious one being Sandra Bullock's performance as the matriarch of the Tuohy family, the charismatic and strong minded Lee Ann Tuohy. Bullock's performance is often the buoy of the film's drama, as she delivers some of the film's most compassionate and endearing scenes. In addition to Bullock's performance, the film at one point veered off its good natured path and attempted to tie in the assumption that the Tuohy family was acting as boosters for Michael as a means to get him to play football at their alma mater Ole Miss. This added a small (at least in the eye of the film), yet effective conflict that added some depth between Oher and his surrogate family. The problem was obviously resolved through a movie-esque speech and treated as a footnote, but it still added a level of cynicism that the film needed to counter act its sweet disposition.

But, as alluded to, such moments are passed over in favor of plot devices that are far more heartwarming and trite. Is Michael's story inspirational? Yes, but it comes at the posterization of the Tuohy family, whose charity has more clout than Michael's underdog story. And because Hancock and company are more interested in creating a safe and accessible story, the danger and peril Michael faced are contrived and treated with very little significance. My guess is that if you want to hear Michael Oher's story, it would be far more palpable and dramatic if heard from his lips or the literary source from which "The Blind Side" is based off of. At least this way we get Michael's voice and not a sugar coated perspective that only allows Michael's story to breathe for a few moments through a surrogate.

"Invictus" has the prestige, but lacks the context (3.5/5)

I had expectations for "Invictus" from the moment it went into pre-production. With names like Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman, and Matt Damon attached how could the film really falter? As it is with most films that are released for award consideration, sometimes prestige trumps layers. This honestly perturbs me to say this about a Clint Eastwood film. Over the last decade or so, Eastwood has certainly created his fair share of films that not only work as great stories, but also explorations into the human condition. Such examples of this would be "Letters from Iwo Jima", "Mystic River", and "Million Dollar Baby". Yet, with Eastwood pumping films out nearly every year, and in some cases two a year, he has seemingly lost his edge. This was evident in both his films from last year, "The Changeling" and "Gran Torino". Without a doubt Eastwood elevated the material in both cases, but both ended up being stilted affairs and lackluster efforts. It's not that the stories weren't present, but they lacked the compassion and direction Eastwood possessed going into them. Unfortunately it gives me great displeasure to say that Eastwood's admirable attempt to account one of Nelson Mandela's greatest moments comes out a little flat.

As expected, the film has great acting. The most praise should be heaped upon Morgan Freeman who by all accounts was born to play Mandela. Aside from being his doppelganger, at least visually, Freeman is able to generate the kind of will and determination that peacefully emanates from the pours of Mandela. I honestly can't pick another actor to portray such an important person. Accompanying Freeman in the ring of great performances is Matt Damon who gives the most physical performance of his career. Playing the role of South Africa's Rugby captain, Francois Peinaar, Damon delivers a performance filled with pride and sweat. He is not only able to capture the characteristics of his historical figure, but also does a fantastic job displaying an honest physical prowess in the Rugby scenes. Yet, the film falters in a department that Eastwood rarely falters in: telling the story. Now the premise of the film, based on real events and non-fiction account of said events, explores Nelson Mandela's attempt to reunite the blacks and whites of South Africa under the support of the nation's Rugby team. Although the wounds are still fresh under the demise of the Apartheid, Mandela puts all of his chips on the idea that the people will come together as one nation to cheer on their team in the 1995 Rugby World Cup.

A gamble that ultimately paid off for Mandela, but never does the film deliver enough context for the event to fully feel like a momentous occasion. Yes, there are moments that set up the ramifications of the Apartheid, but they seemingly only glide over the complications that arose between whites and blacks. In addition to this, there just seems to be a lack of development between the Rugby team Mandela hopes to use as a means for rebuilding a country torn apart. At one moment, the Rugby team seems opposed to Mandela's interest in them, but they end up doing a quick turn and suddenly see it as a golden opportunity. Maybe this is what happened, I don't really know, but never does the team's new found faith in Mandela and their country feel honest. It just seems it had to turn because that's what the film called for. It's this attention to detail and context that really made it difficult for me to catch on to the inspiration. Some will say the film plays out like a conventional sports film, which I don't disagree with, but that's not the problem here. It didn't stunt the inspiration, it was the build up that drained the heart for me.

But the lack of context didn't stay within the conflict between whites and blacks,it also spread through the many scenes that dealt with the Rugby matches themselves. Now, I'm not a purveyor of Rugby by any means and I certainly don't think a film should spell it out for me, but when the film attempts to stir my soul through the use of a match, it better well make sure I understand at least some aspect of the game. Without an understanding of the game, then I'm more caught up in trying to figure out what's going on than I am getting caught up in the game's emotional results. Certainly near the end of the film I was able to figure out some aspects of the game, but I never fully understood it and I never fully got caught up in the rich and historical drama that was generated on the Rugby field. Is this to say that "Invictus" is a bad film? No, it has some grand moments and obviously some terrific performances, but those can only go so far when the story lacks the back story and build up it deserves, especially when said story is based on a momentous moment in a country's tumultuous history.

My Favorite Film Scores of All Time Part 1 of 2

As you all know, I’m quite enamored by films and their creation. Whether it’s a film’s mise-en-scene, its acting, or its screenplay, I like to look at movies from differing angles. Certainly I put more emphasis on certain aspects (i.e. screenplay), but there is one that I’m a closeted fan of: the film score. As I look back on my life, this should come as no surprise to me. I remember when I was little kid, I was consistently creating “a score” that would coincide with the images that would run through my head (Let it be known I wasn’t crazy). Yet, I think the score is an aspect of film that continuously gets taken for granted. In some cases it’s merely treated as background noise, but there is a lot more to it than that. It can serve as a tunnel to a period in time or it can act as a warning sign to the audience. It can implicitly guide us in the understanding of a character or situation. In any event, it always has a function aside from just sounding cool or pretty. With this being a long time coming, here is a list that consists of my favorite scores of all time:



“There Will Be Blood”: For those who know how much I love “There Will Be Blood”, it should come to no surprise that this makes my list. The film boasts a terrific soundtrack arranged by Radiohead guitarist Jonny Greenwood, whose experimentation with strings makes the score sound relevant to the time period the film resides in, while still sounding fresh. In one scene Greenwood uses strings in a fashion that one would find in a horror film (‘There Will be Blood’), while in another he uses the sound of hammers beating on pipes to create a scene that explodes with kinetic energy. Sure, those out there may say some of score is simply racket or annoying, but I find it speaks to the inner turmoil that resides in the character of Daniel Plainview, who slowly but surely loses his soul to the cold grasp of capitalism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HjWIr80ln4 ~ There Will Be Blood

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqrZSYzg1GU ~ Proven Lands

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSNGOpyWWOs ~ Future Markets


“Cinema Paradiso”: Where ‘There Will Be Blood’ is a cynical and often polarizing film, ‘Cinema Paradiso’ is its complete opposite as it’s about the love we hold within. The score, written and conducted by legendary Italian composer Ennio Morricone, bolsters a handful of themes that not only capture the love aspect of the film, but it also captures the nostalgia and sorrow that also accompany the passage of time. Romantic and full of heart, this is one score that will always leave a lump in my throat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFFoLVRch7I ~ First Youth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB91zN_yFcM ~ Toto y Alfredo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwDf2DCX_1A ~ Love Theme


“Atonement”: Although it’s much more conventional than a film like ‘There Will Be Blood’, Atonement’s score is one that swells in the same fashion its drama unfolds. The score consists of some truly haunting pieces, especially ‘Elegy for Dunkirk’ which is set to one of the most impressive scenes you’ll ever see in a film. Yet, where the score is dark, its themes also offer up admirable auditory representations of the characters. Some are inventive, like composer Dario Marianelli’s use of a typewriter in Briony’s Theme, and some are classical compositions. In any event, if the material on the screen doesn’t tug at your heart strings, the music certainly will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXoFtTZTJAw ~Briony

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5VA4RZHyKY ~ Come Back

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rnqx9RvswZs ~ Elegy for Dunkirk


"Pan’s Labyrinth":I guess if I had to use one word to describe Javier Navarette’s score for “Pan’s Labyrinth” it would be thunderous. The film itself is an extremely dark fantasy film that features more moments of terror than it does of grandeur. This would obviously explain why the score prominently features the heavy beating of drums, the shrill shrieks of strings, and a haunting choral section that makes Danny Elfman’s gothic efforts seem angelic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96ju7754pXU ~ Hace, Hace Mucho Tiempo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16DPDm3veXs ~ Guerrilleros

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7ZwFuz1_lY ~ El Que No Es Humano


"Punch-Drunk Love":I remember the score for this film was one of the first scores I became completely enamored with. Composed by Jon Brion, the film features a romantic theme that mixes in chimes, an accordion, a harmonium, horns, and strings. All come together to create a sound that one would seemingly find in a fantastical French film. Yet, Brion’s score isn’t praised simply because of his love theme. It also assists the film in creating dramatic tension. Through the use of sound distortion and using mundane tools (like the sound of duct tape being used), Brion is able to draw sounds from any particular scene and use them as a means to keep the characters bounded with tension and anxiety. Also, his original song “Here We Go” is quite fantastic too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F541NG897vc Hands and Feet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVUPiEY_oZU Punch Drunk Melody

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeQoOTxr_L8 Third Floor Hallway

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8ZNCQTFJvs Here We Go

"A Prophet" is France's answer to 'Goodfellas' (4.25/5)

Let's not kid ourselves, when it comes to gangster films or any kind of crime syndicate based film, they're always inevitably compared to "The Godfather". Whether it's the scope, the themes, or stylization, a mob film is always (fairly or unfairly) compared to Francis Ford Coppola's masterpiece. Yet, let's pump our brakes here. No, the film doesn't come close to touching the golden idol, but it does come close to reaching the heights of another masterpiece: Martin Scorsese's "Goodfellas". Now, one thing that we have to realize is that comparing "Goodfellas" to "The Godfather" would be like comparing a Honeycrisp apple with a Braeburn. Both are of the same genre, yet both give differing tastes and texture. Certainly, "A Prophet" could be compared to "The Godfather" as far as its overall effect and quality, but to completely compare its subject matter would be unfair, especially when it's much more maligned with "Goodfellas".

Where "The Godfather" tackles mob and familial themes, "A Prophet" tackles more so the rise of a mob built business, an idea running rampant in "Goodfellas". The film follows the rise of Malik, a prison inmate who finds himself caught in the middle between Corsican and Arabian inmates. Initially Malik is a feeble inmate. He can't read or write, nor does he have the gumption to defend himself in a hostile environment. So, he aligns himself as the whipping boy to the Corsicans boss, Cesar Luciani, as a way to not only progress in his environment, but as a means for protection. Slowly, but surely Malik works his way up through Cesar's caste system and soon he finds himself as Cesar's right hand man. But, this isn't enough for Malik as he sees a golden opportunity to leverage his stature with Cesar to further a drug ring he has established on the outside with a former inmate and a drug dealer on the inside. It's a daring power play that forces Malik to work around his new found Corsican brethren(Cesar becomes a stepping stone), and the Arab inmates as well. This creates an interesting shift for Malik who has to consistently alter his identity from Corsican supporter to Corsican manipulator in order to continue to play Cesar and the Arab inmates.

Through this Malik gains enough power and clout to effectively call the shots for himself. Although the rise to the top is quite similar to the one found in "Goodfellas", its portrayal and style is the opposite. Where "Goodfellas" is stylish, lush, and vibrant, "A Prophet" is desolate and cold as it captures a prison system wrought with inefficiencies and betrayal. Much like Malik's venture into a world built with crime, we are never at ease as director Jacques Audiard places us directly in the middle of a grim and violent world. And from this comes yet another aspect of the film that I think resembles that of Scorsese's gangster opus: it has a raucous attitude. With the use of a few vicious violent acts, and some well placed songs, the film has a hard edge that cuts deep. Never does it pretend to have a complete moral center. Instead it's far more focused on telling the story about these particular characters and slitting your throat than it is about wondering if Malik's decisions are justified. Some will say that a dose of morality would add depth, but in all honesty it would betray the characters found in the film. Malik isn't interested in doing the right thing. Hell, no one outside of maybe one character are interested in doing the right thing. They're all focused on what they can do for themselves and if that means bribing officials or murdering a car full of Corsicans, then so be it.

These are the acts these characters would commit and giving in to more politically correct characterizations would be an insult. Speaking of the characters, the film features some tremendous acting and none are more impressive than that of Tahar Rahim, who plays Malik. A relative unknown, Rahim delivers a spot on performance as he is able to capture Malik's feeble beginnings to his epic rise. Through Malik's transformation, Rahim most importantly able to build a swagger with expert precision as he slowly works his ways through the ranks. His turn is edgy, raw, and simply captivating. It goes without saying that those three terms also define "A Prophet" as an entity. It may not have the fluidity of "Goodfellas" and may be too cold at times for its own good, but it has the ballsy attitude and intricate crime workings that made Scorsese's film a touchstone back in the early 90's. In addition to its undeniable attitude, the film is filled with wonderful performances and an impressively constructed journey for its protagonist, and it's a film that will set the pace for any mobster cinematic experience that will come out within the next decade.

"An Education" is a subtle, but wonderful coming of age tale (4.5/5)

There are moments in film where you can literally see a star being born. Such examples would be Judy Garland in "The Wizard of Oz" or Johnny Depp in "Edward Scissorhands". It's in this rare instance that an actor gets a chance to make a character special, one that shoots them off into stardom. It should be quite obvious as to where I'm going with this: Carey Mulligan is a star in the making. Obviously she has been around for a while, having bit parts here and there, but this was her time to shine and she takes it for all it's worth.

Yet, before I begin to gush over Mulligan herself, I must give the film as a whole the proper respect it deserves. Certainly Mulligan is the key to the film, but the material itself is more than good. The film, based on a memoir by Lynn Barber, takes place in 1960's suburban London. It follows 16 year old Jenny (Mulligan), a clever and beautiful girl who's working her way to Oxford, not anymore out of her own interest than it is of her father's (Alfred Molina), who feels that those without a proper education are doomed to the streets. With this idea in mind, her father indirectly coaxes her to join clubs and play instruments as a means to add another positive chip to her application to Oxford. Obviously an inherent angst comes from Jenny; she wants to be free and young, but in order to have a life worth living down the road, she must subject herself to listless studying and a stilted social life. This lasts for a while until David Goldman (Peter Sarsgaard), a somewhat rich man twice her age, enters her life and begins to court her. Initially his courting is more focused on exposing her to the world at large, a world she could only explore in a book,but eventually it turns into romance.

David is mysterious, but he's just as charming, which allows him to circumvent Jenny's parents and take Jenny away to places like Oxford and Paris for days at a time. Suddenly, a sheltered Jenny now finds herself jet setting (well more like car setting) her way around on the dime of David. She is finally having the fun and living up to the youthfulness that her age suggests, and she is falling head over heels for David. Nice cars, high end meals, socialite friends, and man to take care of her. An education now is a fleeting idea when high class is willing to unravel its red carpet. This idea is further exacerbated when Jenny's father does a complete 180 under the guise that if a woman has a man taking care of her, an education isn't warranted. This would be all fine and dandy if David is who he says he is, but he isn't and ultimately Jenny throws everything away for a man with very little truth in him. Obviously, this is the moment where Jenny learns from her faults and as the film's plot synopsis suggests, she 'comes of age'. Yet, the way the film goes about it's so subtle and nonchalant that it feels natural. Most films of this nature hammer the hell out of the coming of age subject matter, but this one has an organic progression that is well drawn out and never seems formulaic. At all times the story rings true to the time period it's encapsulated in, as well as the characters that reside within the story.

Director Lone Scherfig does a tremendous job with filling the film with 60's zest, but most importantly, she lets the story stand for itself and lets the actors do their jobs. Both Alfred Molina and Peter Sarsgaard are great in their respective roles, as they're the main buoys in Jenny's life. Sarsgaard is especially good considering he is able to use his charm on both Jenny and us in order to consistently convince us his heart means well even though there is evidence that says otherwise. But, as mentioned before, the real praise belongs to Carey Mulligan, who more than aptly captures the giddy youthfulness of Jenny. Obviously Mulligan isn't 16, but her ability to strike a balance between vulnerability and teen ambition is uncanny, as she fully envelopes her character. When it's all said and done, it's hard to deny Mulligan's charm and incandescent attitude as she lights up the screen and journeys through teen life and in to adulthood. Much like Aubrey Hepburn in "Breakfast at Tiffany's", Mulligan's natural beauty and screen presence demand your undivided attention, and I'll be damned if you don't end up giving it to her (What can I say? I fell in love). This same notion could be applied to the film in its entirety, for it features great performances and a story that feels authentic to the point that it's hard to resist, much like Ms. Mulligan.