John_Q_Citizen Reviews

Pan's Labyrinth (2006)

A Beautiful, Grotesque, and Thrilling Film From Guillermo Del Toro

[14 February 2007]

(This Review Contains No Spoilers) Ofelia and her mother, Carmen, are moving into the middle of a war-ravages Spain. Carmen, recently married to a sadistic Captain Vidal, is mistreated by her husband and worries for her daughter. Ofelia soon finds a magical world full of horrifyingly beautiful creatures to escape her reality. Here, though, she has control over her destiny. She meets Pan the Faun, played by Doug Jones, who charges her to undertake a journey throughout this weird, beautiful world. She meets many a strange creature, including the Pale Man (also played by Jones). Meanwhile, Captain Vidal (Sergi Lopez) tortures prisoners and continually mistreats Carmen.

When this was premiered at Cannes, it received a much-deserved twenty-two minutes of applause. This film has been universally praised as Guillermo Del Toro's masterpiece, and rightfully so. It's eerie, violent, captivating, and thrilling. It's an adult fairytale with some real scares to be had--not just from the wonderfully disturbing creatures in Ofelia's world, but from the horribly sadistic Captain Vidal. A more menacing on-screen villain you will not find easily.

The performances in the film are wonderful, particularly from Sergi Lopez who radiates so much menace that it is truly frightening at times. Ivana Baquero, playing Ofelia, performs perfectly in her role. Ofelia is scared, yet brave at times. She has a destiny that she can control in her magical world. Ariadna Gil who plays Carmen gives the role a perfect amount of fright and gullibility, amplifying the menace from Lopez. Doug Jones makes me wonder how incredibly difficult it must've been to make this--communicating in a language you do not know, making sure that you know your opposite acting partner's lines, and being placed in a costume with no eye cut-outs. That sounds like so much fun. But, he makes it work. Wonderfully.

The soundtrack is mystical and tear-inducing at times. It adds so much to the atmosphere of the movie that it's not even funny. The cinematography is beautiful and dark and perfect for a fantasy-movie. Much like Lord of the Rings, it utilizes big camera moves in small, personal stages, yet not overdoing it.

Lastly, but not least, would be Guillermo Del Toro. A more visually twisted and creative man you might not find. Thank God that cab driver found him and returned his notebook. Otherwise, there might be no Pan's Labrynth.

The violence in the film is graphic and the creatures are scary. It is amazingly memorable and I suggest you not take your young ones to see this--it's for grown-ups. Still, it's very much worth it.

Normally I would assign a score but you can't score this movie. No score would do it justice.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

Decent Adaptation But Ultimately Too Generic and Child-Like

[21 January 2007]

Harry Potter is miserable. His family hates him. They give him hell. But that all changes soon enough when a giant named Hagrid arrives to take Harry off to a school for witches and wizards. He departs on a fantastical adventure that he could only achieve in his wildest dreams--only this time, it's all too real.

Based upon the novel 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone', this is currently the fourth highest-grossing movie of all time. It was hyped up so much--particularly from the fans of the wildly popular books. JK Rowling didn't know what she was getting herself into, I'm sure, when she scribbled down the first few chapters of her saga in that London coffee bar. She sparked a near-cultural phenomenon.

Too bad it didn't live up to it's hype in terms of quality (I think). It was decent enough for an adaptation, but overall, you could put the standard 'book-is-better-than-the-movie' excuse here. It did make its fair share of money though.

The direction was way too generic. Chris Colombus, while his career consists of mainly child-films, was an okay choice for the role of director. But his style is not as specific as I would've liked. He gives the film a light-heartedness that is not quite appropriate. The book is much darker I think in terms of themes and story. Too bad Terry Gilliam did not sign on.

The acting is decidedly average for the cast members appearing. The kids did okay for their age. It's a good thing that they grow up through the later films. Other cast members such as Robbie Coltrane (although perfect for the character he played) and Alan Rickman (also perfect) did not perform to the best of their abilities, methinks. Richard Harris was quite impressive though.

The script by Steve Klovis was not very impressive. I thought the dialog was cheesy and childish. The screenplay was too full of cute child moments that I really don't like, although these kinds of things will suit family viewings (which is what the studio was aiming for in the first place).

Overall, this is a decent enough adaptation although I did not like it as much as I would've liked.

6/10

Batman Begins (2005)

From Ground Zero: Batman Begins

[21 January 2007]

Bruce Wayne is guilty of his parent's deaths. He seeks to fight criminals. So, he is locked up in a Chinese prison to fight them from the inside. But a man comes to rescue him--Ducard. He takes Bruce up into his mountain mansion to train him and perfect his skills--akin to a ninja. Things go awry, though, and Bruce must get out of that place. He ventures back to Gotham City. With the aid of his butler, Alfred, his ally inside Wayne Enterprises, Lucius Fox, and his girlfriend, Rachel Daws, he becomes the Dark Knight.

This movie was so hyped when it came up for release. I must admit that I was slightly skeptical when I viewed the trailers. I thought it couldn't get any worse than 'Batman & Robin'. Needless to say, I never saw it in theaters. I regret it so much.

My uncle rented this movie from our local video store. He watched it and told me it was one of the best movies he'd seen in a while (which is surprising, because he is very strict when it comes to movies). He even bought it and watched it twice. So, I had to see it. I was very impressed.

The thing that striked me most about Begins is the realistic take on Batman. This is NOT the Happy-Meal style movie that Joel Schumaker exploited to six-year-olds. This is a much more mature, violent, and scary movie, one with much more mature themes and a much darker storyline. The visuals give the film an eerie and grim quality, one that was lacking in the previous Schumaker schlock-fests. Wally Pfister's cinematography utilizes dim lighting and a muted color palette. The production design by Nathan Crowly is rank and miserable, contrasted with the high-class offices and Bruce's manor.

Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard deserve great recognition too for their wonderful score. It is a completely different take than Danny Elfman's wonderful original music, but this is not a bad thing. The music for Begins fits the film perfectly. The themes are tied and give a great mystical and scary element to the story.

Great direction by Nolan, too. I still can't believe he went from directing Memento to Insomnia to this. It's truly a leap--albeit this may be a very conventional movie if you compare it to, say, Memento. Anyway, back on the direction--he truly freaked me out with his reveal of Scare Crow. That scared the hell out of me when I first saw it.

My only two gripes with this movie are dialog and acting. The dialog for this film is not up to Nolan's regular high standards, and this disappointed me. It felt cliché'd in parts and forced in others. But this was all washed over by the great experience I was having watching the movie at the time. My only other gripe was Katie Holmes as Rachel. People were quick to say that her performance was forced and contrived. I agree with them for the most part.

The other actors were fine. Christian Bale as Batman took a while to get used to (for me, anyway), but now that I've seen it, I think he does it even slightly better than Michael Keaton's original. And that's saying something. Moragn Freeman and Michael Cane were wonderful as always. Nothing else to add. I was surprised by an appearance from Rutger Hauer. His performance as the greedy slime-ball CEO of Wayne Enterprises was great. Liam Neeson was pretty good too, but his lines of dialog hampered his ability slightly (Ex: "If you'll excuse me, I have a city to destroy..."). Cillian Murphy freaked me out as the Scarecrow. His performance as said villain and alter-ego Dr. Crane was very menacing and just right for the role.

Overall, this is a much better, mature, entertaining, darker film than any of the previous ones. If you haven't seen this, you haven't seen the real Batman.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)

Classic Silliness

[21 January 2007]

King Arthur is on a quest for Camelot, so he recruits some of the bravest knights in the land (well, all but one) to join him at Camelot. But, sadly, 'tis a silly place, so they change their minds. God, though, has other plans for them. He charges them to seek out the Holy Grail, so the Knights of the Round Table embark on a low budget search for the Cup of Christ, encountering very many silly obstacles.

The low-budget nature of this movie astounds me. It is simply one of the funniest movies ever made. John Cleese, Grahm Chapman, Michael Palin, Terry George, Terry Gilliam, and Eric Idle portray many men in this hilarious skit-filled saga. Each Python member is so diverse in their performances it took me a few viewings to realize their different characters.

Filled with many classic hilarious moments from the swallow argument ("Are you suggesting swallows migrate?"), to the Black Knight ("It's just a flesh wound!"), to the Killer Bunny ("Run away!"), this movie will have you quoting the memorable lines of dialog that the Pythons are so clever at dreaming up.

This movie is so ridiculous and original that it will never be duplicated (even though people sure have tried). But what is very funny is the way that the Pythons throw away the most ridiculous things instead of addressing them up front. Surely the background is a great example--people banging cats against the wall for no reason, filling baskets with mud, banging heads on wooden planks--it's all very silly.

Overall, if you haven't seen Python, then you haven't seen comedy.

Sin City (2005)

Great Movie That Brings a Comic Book To Life

[19 January 2007]

Frank Miller's experiences on the RoboCop movies were not pleasant ones. So, naturally, he was not very excited about having one of his most cherished graphic novel series made into a movie. Thank God for Robert Rodriguez and his crack squad of visual effects producers. With the short that they filmed (which actually starts Sin City), they had not only brought Miller on board, but convinced him to help co-direct.

There are three stories that this movie is composed of (actually four). The first centers on Marv, the big lug with a broken heart. He seeks bloody revenge on the men who killed his Goldie, and gets it many times over. The second tells us the story of Dwight, the skilled killer who seeks to protect the streets from a bent cop with 'a big drunk-on'. And he does. The last story revolves around Hartigan, the straight cop trying to protect an innocent little girl from a pedophile.

There is also a short opening sequence centering on a smooth hit-man out looking for a little cash.

As separate pieces, they stand out magnificently. But when you put them together, you have a movie. A damn good one, too. The stories make up a universe that may or may not be derived from a Pulp Fiction-esquire mythology. If you watch Pulp Fiction and then Sin City, you will notice some similarities (not to mention QT's little segment). But the style of the two films is vastly different. Sin City relies heavily on iconic visuals, taken straight from a Frank Miller drawing. If you freeze frame at about any point in the movie, it looks exactly like a panel from the graphic novel. The use of color at certain areas as well to emphasize a certain idea or object is quite beautiful.

But being similar to Pulp Fiction, this movie is violent--very violent, and is certainly not for weak-stomached individuals. Although, it is so heavily stylized that you really kind of applaud the violence in a way. Or maybe that's just me, being the freak I am. Lots of people complain about nudity as well and the amount of it in the movie, but there are only two characters who are nude. And it isn't that bad.

The actors are top-notch here. This is a weird thing to say considering how wooden, stereotypical, and melodramatic it is. But that's how it's supposed to be--no actor in this film could deliver a straight performance and get away with it. It would drive this film into the bowels of absurdity. Yet, the way the actors perform is quite cool to watch. Mickey Rourke gives one of the best performances in his career, and the other actors are not that far behind him.

Rodriguez was wise to shoot the movie frame-for-frame from the graphic novel. It simply would not have worked any other way. He shot the movie digitally, and I'm the first to admit that I'm not a big fan of digital. But, once again, it probably would not have worked if it wasn't shot all on green screen with digital cameras. Watch the movie and you'll see what I mean.

I think the real star here is obviously Frank Miller. He created the universe of Basin City, plus all of the iconic images. Truly deserving of his credit as 'co-director'.

Overall, this is a great movie. Fun, bloody, brilliant, and totally badass.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

Great Epic Film-making (Part Three--Not My Favorite, But Still An Amazing Achievement)

[17 January 2007]

The third, final, climactic installment of Peter Jackson's epic trilogy is here. It is the film that everybody's been waiting for. This is it--after this, it's all over.

The Battle of Helm's Deep is over. Frodo is still bearing the Ring and is nearing Mordor with every step he takes. But things get worse before they get better. Gandalf must find where Sauron's army will strike, and he must find out quickly.

This movie contains the biggest and most epic battle ever put onto film--and I think that that's a fact, and not an opinion. Without giving much away, I will say that it is the most amazing, exciting fight you probably have witnessed. Of course, I can't speak for most people, but I'm sure a lot of people speak this way.

The performances are decidedly the same as the last two movies--nothing much new going on, which kind of bugged me. There was character development galore, and it was done well, but the performances did not develop with the characters. I was not as impressed with the actors as much in this movie as in the last two. Ian McKellan comes from being a kindly old grandpa in FOTR to a cold and unsympathetic old man in TTT, but comes around in this as a nicer person. Yes, he is still wise, but his character has become much more likable in this--which I was happy about, of course.

The other characters stay about the same though. I'm sure people will flame me for writing this (assuming anyone ever reads this), but I felt that apart from Gandalf, the character arcs were not very steep. Yes, there was character development, but all you ever really did was feel for them more rather than see them change. But this is a moot point.

Technically, this movie surpasses the first two by miles. The CGI is loads better (and when I say 'loads', I mean it). The cinematography is decidedly better and suits this epic atmosphere a lot more than the first two. Howard Shore has outdone himself (again) and delivers much more emotional music. All in all, much better technically than the previous two. And I'm sure lots of LOTR fans will claim this to be their favorite of the series.

Alas, though, it is not my favorite of them. I would have to place that honor on The Two Towers.

Overall, this may not be my favorite, but I will say that it is probably the best of the three films. An amazing (and high-grossing) achievement.

8/10

The Good Shepherd (2006)

Overly Long Yet Intriguing Film---Worth the Price of a Ticket

[15 January 2007]

Edward Wilson believes in America--a patriot. He has been involved with the intelligence community since the day his father shot himself as a traitor. Edward was six. Years later, he is married to Margret Ann Russell after ending a tumultuous affair with a deaf woman. He catches the eye of Gen. Bill Sullivan, who appoints Edward as chief director of a new intelligence agency. CIA.

This movie is incredibly detailed. While non totally accurate in terms of historical events, it does show a commitment to history. The characters are not the real people--simply characters based on real people. I was surprised by how intrigued by this movie I was. The plot was confusing yet compelling. There were some genuine twists in the story, most of which caught me off guard. You truly cannot trust anybody.

This picture boasts the most ensemble cast in a film since...well, any film. Chalk full of famous actors like Matt Damon, Angelina Jolie, William Hurt, Robert De Niro, Alec Baldwin, Billy Crudup, Michael Gambon, and even a small cameo from Joe Pesci, they all give great performances, as usual. Matt Damon effortlessly always plays the serious tough guy who is committed to his job. Angelina Jolie plays the distraught wife with surprising believability. William Hurt, Crudup, De Niro, Gambon, Pesci--all of them play great enigmatic people that perform wonderfully.

I was surprised when I found out that Robert De Niro would be at the helm of the movie. I didn't know if he would work well as a director--but I was surprised. He delivers the story across pretty effectively, although at the beginning it is slightly jumbled and takes a while to get a feel of what's going on. He brings each twist across that leaves you genuinely surprised (most of the time).

The cinematography was pretty good, although kind of generic. It comes across as a period film with the choice of colors and color palette in the stock.

I was a little irked about the length of the film, though. About ten minutes could've been cut, although I really can't say which ten minutes, because almost every scene is essential to the development of the plot.

Overall, an intriguing film, but a little too long for my tastes. But it was worth the ticket and if it's worth it, that's all that matters.

Fight Club (1999)

Clever Satiric Take On Advertising With Airtight Performances and Visually Breathtaking Direction

[14 January 2007]

'Fight Club' is a 1999 film directed by David Fincher and stars Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, and Helena Bonham Carter. It centers on our Narrator (Norton), who's apartment is decked out in the pornography of IKEA furniture. Sensing his life is incomplete, he is dissatisfied with...something. He can't sleep. So he begins to frequent support group meetings faking diseases. He cries, so he sleeps. Then she ruined everything. Marla Singer arrives, so he can't cry, and he can't sleep.

By happenstance, our narrator meets Tyler Durden on an airplane. They chat, then go their separate ways. But the Narrator's apartment (and all of his IKEA furniture) is destroyed by a gas explosion, and he has nowhere to stay. No he calls Tyler. The two start a club where men can fight and feel like gods. But I'm not supposed to talk about it.

This film was a flop at the box office when it first came out. I can guess many reasons for this, but I'm sure that the no. 1 reason would be misleading advertising. It was marketed as an action movie with lots of fighting and violence. But the fighting is a little part of a bigger picture. What audiences got was a satiric and gory take on advertising, and an entertaining one at that.

The performances in this film are perfect for its context. Brad Pitt shows us all that he really can act. He portrays the absolute coolest character ever put onto film. Edward Norton shows us that Jerry Lewis is not dead--he is a great physical actor that gives us the perfect blend of comedy. His 'fall' is akin to Jerry Lewis.

David Fincher stylizes this movie in a way that makes it great to look at, but also shows us that if it was filmed any other way, it wouldn't have worked. His attention to detail is amazing. Jeff Cornwerth's green photography is visually breathtaking.

Overall, this is a funny, yet dark take on advertising with the byproduct of fighting. Worth buying and watching over and over.

The Usual Suspects (1995)

Sleek and Stylish Thriller With Some Great Acting and Direction

[14 January 2007]

The movie opens 'last night' in San Pedro, California. A boat has been destroyed and twenty-seven men are dead. The only two witnesses are a cripple and a severely burned Hungarian that speaks of Keyser Soze. US Customs agent Dave Kujan is flown in from New York to interrogate the cripple--Verbal Kint, played by Kevin Spacey. What follows is a twisted story about five criminals in the midst of a cat-and-mouse game.

An ensemble cast of actors fills the shoes of the characters quite effectively. Gabriel Byrne plays Keaton--the bent cop desperate on going straight. Steven Baldwin and Benecio Del Toro play McManus and Fenster, two crooks working for a Californian mob. Kevin Pollack plays a petty thief named Todd Hockney, 'truly the one man that didn't give a f--- about anything.' Pete Postelwaithe plays a shadowy lawyer named Kobayashi, a creepy and enigmatic man working for...well, you'll have to wait and see. And, of course, Kevin Spacey plays Verbal Kint, the palsy victim who's actually quite an asset when it comes to big jobs.

From the opening scene to the very last shot, you are wanting to know what happens. The plot is confusing at times, but not in a frustrating way. The film raises a lot more questions than answers, but again, it is not frustrating. The ending is one of the most delightful and euphoric twists ever put onto film, and then you realize that you have been completely fooled--caught up in a storyteller's web.

The direction is perfect for the low-budget, independent nature of the movie. Bryan Singer's choice of clever shots and hidden clues that you don't pick up on until your second viewing shows a articulate and thoughtful director--one who truly cares about the craft. It's hard to imagine that this was only his second film.

The music by John Ottman adds another feeling to the movie--one of mystery and suspense. What surprised me about the score was the 'un-hip' feeling to it. His score is very unconventional and quite effective. His theme for Soze is magical and mysterious, breathing a legend into the character.

Finally, Christopher McQuarrie's script. One hell of a script. Without knowing that he spawned one of the most effective and popular mysteries ever made, I'm sure that he was surprised with its cult following--as well as his own Oscar win.

Truly a great thriller. Watch it as many times as you can. The first viewing is for the enjoyment. The second is pure revelation.

Aliens (1986)

Great Action Film but Not as Effective or Horrific as the Original

[14 January 2007]

Fifty seven years after Riply's battle on the Nostromo and her escape, she is found by a salvaging team floating through deep space in suspended animation. She is brought back to Earth and finds that her daughter has died of old age, and that she has lost her contract with Weyland-Yutani.

But things complicate. She learns that the planet that she visited fifty-seven years ago has been colonized, and that the Company has lost contact with it. A group of elite marines are ordered in to 'check it out'. Riply is asked to go, but for obvious reasons, declines. But after a night or two conflicting with herself, accepts to go.

'Aliens' has been universally hailed as one of the greatest action films of all time. It is a good action film, but when I first viewed it, I expected more horror. That's probably the reason that I don't like this film very much. I loved the original, of course, but coming out of that, I wanted more horror. Making it an action film is not all that bad a thing, I suppose. Riply is more fleshed out a character, with Newt, the little girl, as her salvation for sanity.

I am annoyed with those goddamn Marines, though. After a while, Bill Paxton's obscene monologues get really annoying and Vasquez's stupid comebacks get really old really quick. But these things serve a purpose, perhaps. The action in the film is, well...fun--for the most part. And it does have some scary moments, which is what I want. But there weren't as much as I wanted.

Overall, a worthy enough successor to a classic horror film, but still not as up to snuff as I would've wanted.

7/10

Alien (1979)

Extremely Creepy Film Brought On by a Scary Atmosphere and Freakish Art Direction

[13 January 2007]

Let's face it, folks--Ridley Scott is the master in creating an atmosphere to a film. He uses lighting, smoke, sound, music, or whatever else may work to achieve a certain effect. In this case, the atmosphere and starkness of space are used to get the hair on the back of our neck to stand. It sure as hell stands.

The plot to this movie is simple and many films have basically copied it. The crew of a large space barge receive a distress signal to an alien planet. They come down to investigate, and one of the members is attacked by a giant claw that grapples onto your face. He becomes infected with some sort of egg, and in one of the film's most memorable and gruesome moments, a squirrel-sized monster bursts out of his stomach and scurries into the air shafts.

This may be regarded as one of the scariest films of all time--of course, that may depend on who you are. It was certainly scary for me, but then again, I'm not a horror film addict. But this is one of those horror films that I can watch over and over and still be as scared as I was when I first saw it.

Surprisingly, there are only seven real actors in this film. There are only seven characters (ermmm...okay, maybe eight). But, while they are not fully developed characters, I was with them every step of the way. They are truck drivers in space, basically--and I know that term has been used a lot before to describe the movie, but it's true--we sympathize with these people. We feel for them when they die. We feel their fear. The latter is, perhaps, the most successful thing about this film. It relies on tension, suspense, adrenaline, and flat-out fear instead of cheap 'jump' scares to let the movie flow. Of course, with any horror film, there are jump moments. But they are so more effective than any modern horror film that they had me jumping in both delight and shock. What is most effective about these moments is, of course, the build-up.

Ellen Ripley is played with a badass perfection by Sigourney Weaver. How an Oscar has eluded this woman in her glorious career, I will never know. John Hurt plays Kane, the tragic and likable man whose death we will probably never forget once we view this movie. Veronica Cartwright plays Lambert, a shrieking and hysterical woman who is, in many ways, us. She is our logic and convey's our emotions throughout the movie. Tom Skeritt plays the laid-back captain of the Nostromo, the leviathan mining vehicle that floats through space with a silent pulse. Harry Dean Stanton and Yalphet Kotto play the underdecks--two tough guys with their shares on their mind. And of course, who could forget Ian Holm? Truly the most difficult of characters to bring to life. I must admit, when I witnessed the revelation and transformation his character underwent, I was absolutely gobsmacked.

H.R. Geiger must have some pretty nasty things going through his head when he designed the Alien. A strangely beautiful creature that, although scary as hell, was fascinating to look at.

If it wasn't Ridley Scott at the helm of this giant vehicle, I don't think that the film would've been half as good--his auterish and stylized direction is perfect for the mood of the film. Where he places his camera makes it scarier than how any other director (certainly Walter Hill) could've done it. His choice to linger on shots of people entering and exiting rooms brings a strange tension as if making you think, "God, end this now..."

Overall, this film started a phenomenon.It is one of those classic horror films that only comes along once in a while. Like 'The Shining', it is chalk full of one memorable moment after another. It created and shaped horror films as we see them today.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Great Epic Film-making (Part 2--Even Better Than FOTR)

[13 January 2007]

Jackson's second film installment of the JRR Tolkien trilogy is large in scope and vision. It is truly a great cinematic experience--rollicking good fun, scary monsters, human themes, and big battles. This film delivers the goods many times over. In my opinion, it is better than the first film.

This one does not center on the Ring. It centers on Aragorn's journey to Rohan--a horse kingdom--to warn its leaders of an onslaught of Uruks sent by Saruman to conquer them. What follows are some of the greatest and most exciting battle scenes ever put onto screen.

Peter Jackson directs this with the same type of style as was in the first movie--big, sweeping shots, lots of VFX, dark lighting, bombastic and rousing music. And it works just as well in this movie as it did in the last. The script is far better than the Fellowship's script. It is much more flushed out, much more interesting, and has a lot more action. I like it! The acting is on par with part one. Ian McKellan gives the best performance out of all the actors. His return as Gandalf (the White) is memorable. While not as likable a character in this movie, he still serves as a wise, all-knowing and powerful figure. I repeat, he is NOT the grandfatherly figure he portrayed in the first film, but a wise, lethal wizard that is strict and on the nose.

The rest of the cast is great as well. John Rhys-Davies serves as some much-needed comic relief. His performance as Gimli brings a lightness to the film (a film that basically coincides with The Empire Strikes Back). Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn brings a gritty and badass-type of quality to his character. He is more fleshed out in TTT than in FOTR. Orlando Bloom still plays the pretty boy elf that has a great CGI stunt double. I daresay the girls in the theater were drooling over him.

Overall, a worthy, if not better, installment on the trilogy. Epic film-making at its best.

Gladiator (2000)

Beautiful Sad Story With Great Cinematography, Score, Performances, and Direction

[13 January 2007]

This is Ridley Scott's fourth masterpiece. Period.

Maximus Decimus Meridius is a general for the Roman Army. Just finishing up his duty in Germainia, he seeks to return home. But his mentor, Caesar Marcus Arelius, wants him to stay on as Emperor, rejecting his own son as not worthy. The son, obviously jealous, murders his father and orders Maximus' family, and Max himself, dead. Thus follows an odyssey of epic proportions of revenge.

Gladiator is an epic film in every sense of the word. It is no doubt that Ridley Scott's vision helped shape the enormous scope of this film and benefited from it. Scott seems to be the master the epic actioner.

The performances by all the actors are tear-shedding. Maximus, played by Crowe, is easily the most straightforward character in the film. Crowe delivers emotion in an intense fashion that makes be cry every time I see him die, being carried out of the Colesseum on his back. Joaquin Phoenix's performance, I think, easily outdoes Crowes. Phoenix's character (Commodus) is so complex and dimensional, I sympathize with him every time--even with the atrocious acts he has committed. Connie Neilsen plays Lucilla, Max's old flame before his marriage and also Commodus's sister. She is a beautiful woman and commands respect from those around her. And she gets it, too.

The cinematography by John Maetheson is dark, murky, and depressing. And that was the effect the filmmakers wanted. His choice of the 45 degree shutter angles during the battle scenes create a more barbaric and violent experience for the viewer. And those battles ARE violent. No other filmmaker could've done this like Ridley Scott. He is the master of the craft. He makes everything look so effortless and easily done, yet is so seamless. I'm still depressed of his loss at the Oscars.

An honorable mention goes out to Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard. Their score for this film is emotionally bound and delivers the goods time and time over. It is a soundtrack worthy of my CD rack. Their 'Now We Are Free' makes me cry every time.

Overall, this is a great film. Truly deserving of its Oscar win. Great story, great acting, and great direction make this a modern masterpiece.

9/10

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

Magical and Fun Movie Filled With Some Fabulous Visuals and a Great Leading Performance

[12 January 2007]

Pirates of the Caribbean is about a lone, loony pirate by the name of Jack Sparrow. He's been down on his luck, lately. He's wanted by the authorities, his hooker girlfriends want nothing more to do with him, he's been deserted on an island and suffers from sun stroke, the rum is gone, etc...just to name a few.

What also is very bad is that a group of supernatural pirates are after a cursed Aztec coin to cure them of their invulnerability. It hasn't been a very good day for Jack Sparrow.

What's great about this film is that it is one of those big summer action movies, plus it has a soul. It is with its characters a lot more than you would expect. The villains are, well, villainous. Their protagonists are likable and well-written. The action is entertaining and suspenseful.

Gore Verbinski directs it with a big epic scope in mind, but makes it look easy. The action is superbly directed and doesn't suffer from 'style over substance'.

Of course, the movie's main strength would have to be Johnny Depp. It is obvious that this is one of cinema's most memorable performances. Depp brings the perpetually intoxicated Captain Jack to life with such brilliance and comic timing, I couldn't believe that it was Depp behind the makeup.

The CGI is nothing short of breathtaking. The skeleton pirates are a little cartoonish, but I still commend ILM for their wonderful effort. The score by Klaus Badelt is a bombastic and heroic one filled with big epic tunes and great themes that tie the film together.

Overall, a great summer action movie that is great for both kids and adults. 8/10

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Brings Back the Magic of the Books That Was Sorely Lacking In the First Two Installments

[12 January 2007]

JK Rowling did not know what she was getting herself into when she scribbled the first few pages of 'HARRY POTTER' in that London coffee shop. The series has become a worldwide smash and has spawned four movies so far (a fifth is on the way). My review is concerning the forth.

Alfonso Cuaron brings us 'Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban', the third movie of the third book by JK. Harry is returning to Hogwarts for his third year at the boarding school for witchcraft and wizardry. I daresay some religious fanatics might find this offensive. Anyway, he has some problems--his family hates him, his course book won't stop trying to bite him, his grades are in the balance, and a deranged wizard-turned-escapist wants Harry's blood.

Cuaron, not widely known before this film, is the director of the hit sex comedy 'Y Tu Mama Tambien' and the children's film 'A Little Princess'. He brings his unique vision to the Harry Potter film franchise that was sorely lacking in the previous two films, which suffered from Chris Colombus's generic style and cute child moments. Alfonso Cuaron certainly has an eye for cinematography and where to place the camera. Emmanuel Lubezki (sp?), the DP, brings us a dark, murky look to the story. The restlessly moving camera adds to the mood as well.

John William's music is, as always, breathtaking. His score for this film surpasses the past two, as he brings a mischievous and dark, thematically-tied string of music that never seems to stop (which is a good thing).

The performances by the kids in this movie are, well...good. Better than the first two movies. They have matured (thankfully), not only as humans, but as actors as well. Of course with any children's story, you are going to have some cheap 'kids' moments as well. But they are, for the most part, subdued in the storyline.

Overall, a more realistic (if that term can be used), stylized, mature, and specific movie. Entertaining for all audiences. It brings back the magic of the books that was lacking in the first two installments.

8/10

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

A Hard-Hitting Subjective Film that Shows Us the Horrors of Drug Abuse

[11 January 2007]

Darren Aronofsky's second and most powerful film, 'Requiem For a Dream', deals with a group of three friends and a sweet old lady who get hooked onto drugs and begin to abuse them, leading to horrendous consequences.

Ellen Burstyn plays Sara Goldfarb, a plump and friendly gal showing her old age and overweight-ness. She is a television-and-choco-holic, who takes to watching a continuous infomercial about improving your life. Her son, Harry--played by Jared Leto--is a junkie of sorts, who resorts to stealing her television every week or so. He hauls it on down to the pawnbroker (in one of the most beautiful title sequences I've seen) with the help of his friend, Tyrone C. Love. They get their cash, they get their pot.

However, these two men are humans. Both have a love interest. Marion Silver, played by Jennefer Connelly, is Harry's girlfriend. They love each other in a very real and heartbreaking way. Tyrone has his woman as well, although we don't get to know her very well through the course of the movie.

But things begin to spiral out of control. Sara is tricked by a telemarketer into thinking that she could appear on the Tappy Tibbons show that she watches so much. She obsesses about adorning her red dress--but it won't zip up all the way. So she seeks a doctor about some weight pills. Thus begins Sara's disintegration.

Marion and Harry, on the other hand, are dreaming about opening a clothing store. Harry sees that if he gets money from the drugs he has, they could scrounge up enough to open their business together, along with the help of Tyrone. But they get hooked on the pot--and here begins their story.

All of this comes crashing down in one of the most gut-wrenching climaxes in movie history.

Aronofsky's use of subjective imagery, camera speed techniques, and fast cutting gets us deep into the heads of our characters. Characters that, in fact, we are with all the way through. His images portray an accurate and miserable world of drug addiction, sexuality, and desperation. Mattew Libatique uses hue change and color filters to give us different feelings throughout the three different seasons (or acts) of the movie.

The performances by the actors are absolutely flabbergasting. Ellen Burstyn's Acadamy Award loss was, perhaps, a crime. Her performance was so powerful and radiated sympathy for her character, the sweet and lovable Mrs. Goldfarb. It is truly frightening to see what she is reduced to by the end of the film. Jared Leto and Jennefer Connely give all-star performances as well. They are truly in love during this movie. They convey such realism. You identify with them from the start. Marlon Wayans also acts very well in here, too--proving that he can do more than stupid comedies. His dramatic acting is astounding to see, especially if you watch 'Little Man' right before this.

An honorable mention goes to Mr. Clint Mansell, the composer, as well as the Kronos Quartet, for delivering one hell of an emotional score. It is currently a very popular soundtrack, and rightfully so.

Overall, this is a hard-hitting and on-the-nose kind of film that only comes along once in a while. Kudos to the actors, the director, and to Mr. Hubert Selby Jr. for writing this beautifully sad story.

The Omen (2006)

Great Cinematography and Decent Enough Acting Combined With an Intriguing Storyline Make...The Omen

[11 January 2007]

Late one night in the Vatican Observatory, a young priest spots a large comet flaring across the night sky. He quickly consults his father (preist), who confirms that this comet is the latest in a series of the fore signs of the Apocalypse.

Back in Rome, deputy ambassador Robert Thorn is rushing to the hospital for the birth of his child. 'Apparently there are complications,' he says. When he arrives, he finds the baby has died. Heartbroken, he seeks to spare his wife the pain of the bad news, and secretly adopts another child, born at the same time. The baby has a cute red bed as well.

Unbeknownst to Robert or his wife, this child is the Antichrist.

After a series of grotesque and suspicious deaths, Robert begins to realize the truth--and seeks to destroy the evil.

As with any John Moore picture, this movie is just marvelous to look at. The cinematography is superbly dark and blue, conveying the gloom sense of doom (alliteration intended). Jonathan Sela's use of dramatic lighting and smooth camera movement is worth giving this movie look--even if you don't like it very much.

The performances by the actors were decent enough. The three male leads were the best in the film, although this isn't saying much, considering that we have Liev Schreiber, David Thewlis, and Pete Postelwaithe (sp?). The only irk I have with any actor in the film is Julia Stiles. She is a very pretty woman, and perhaps the best choice for Cate Thorn, but her acting is rather wooden. But she still passes in my book.

The music by Marco Beltrami is okay in some parts, but ultimately falls into the category of 'jump scare score'. That being said, this movie is not very scary at all. It is exciting and in parts, surprising. The last ten minutes of the film are heart-throbbing, but if you've seen the original, you probably won't be surprised at all.

Overall, this is one of the better remakes I've seen. It has its flaws, but it is worthy to enter my DVD collection.

Casino Royale (2006)

Great Rebooting Of the Franchise After the Laughable Die Another Day

[10 January 2007]

Daniel Craig stars as the 'new' James Bond, and 'new' it sure is! After chasing down a Spinder-Man like African bomb maker, Bond thwarts a large airbus being destroyed. The man behind the bombing, 'Le Chiffre', used this event to bet against the stock market for the particular avionics company. Unfortunately, though, he lost a lot of money.

Now his employers are after him. His last resort is to enter into a high-stakes poker game taking place at Casino Royale. Bond's assignment is to play against Le Chiffre and to out-bet and win the game.

I would like to put more into my summary of the plot, but I can't without giving too much away. Because this, unlike some other Bond films, offers twists of a truly surprising nature.

When Daniel Craig was announced as the new actor to play Bond, naysayers and die-hards went into an uproar. 'But he's blond!' they would shout. 'He's too short!' would be another excuse. I will admit that I was skeptical when I first heard the news over a year before release of the film. But over that year, the idea grew on me. I had seen him in a few other films, and realized that he would be a good, if not great actor to portray the hard-hitting double-o.

Needless to say, I was not disappointed with the producer's decision. Craig is THE perfect tough guy to play in the role of Bond. He is the Chuck Norris of Britain. I will go as far to say that he is the best Bond since Connery.

After the mess of a Bond film that they call 'Die Another Day', it was obvious that this franchise needed a drastic reboot. If you watch the parachute-surfing scene in DAD, you know exactly what I mean. I'd say that the producers and the director Martin Campbell sure did one hell of a job and delivered on their promise.

Naysayers and even some general critics claim that the poker scene in the film drags on for way too long, and that the film is poorly paced. I can see where some of their criticisms come from, but I thought that the poker scene offered some real tension between our hero and our villain. Not to mention the fact that if Bond loses he is financing terrorism.

People also criticize the running time--and I can see that too. Clocking in at two hours and twenty four minutes, it is the longest running Bond film of the franchise. But I don't mind long movies, especially when they have something to offer.

Overall, a better, badder, more human Bond. One of the best movies I've seen so far this year.

9/10

The Fountain (2006)

Good Try But a Little Too Full Of Itself Despite Some Wonderful Cinematography

[10 January 2007]

Darren Aronofsky's third film, The Fountain, is an odyssey of love and the search for eternal life. Set across three different time periods, Hugh Jackman plays Tomas, Tommy, and Tom in a rather static performance. In the 1500s, he plays a Spanish conquistador Tomas, charged by his queen Isabel, to find a Mayan pyramid in the middle of the dark jungles. He enlists the help of three men--two soldiers and a priest (played well, as usual, by Mark Margolis)--to help navigate the dangerous jungles.

In the present, he plays Tommy, a cancer researcher using Rhesus Monkeys to study brain tumos. Tommy's wife, Izzi, also has a malignant brain tumor that will eventually kill her (and is also at work on a book called 'The Fountain'). His mentor, played by Ellen Burstyn in the film's best performance, disapproves with Tommy's studies of the baboon-using it as a guinea pig for a mysterious substance found in Central America. He finds the tumor in the baboon receding, getting smaller and smaller until it reaches permanent recession. Tommy rushes to his wife to tell her, but it is to late. She has a seizure and dies later in her hospital room.

In the future 2500, Tom (a completely hairless Hugh) is the Last Man. He floats through space in a bubble with a large dying tree. Over time, he has hallucinations of his wife appearing in the bubble, which apparently is a metaphor (or literally) his wife in the future with him. They are floating in the direction of Xhibalba (sp?), a large dying star nearing supernova. Xhibalba was worshiped by the ancient Mayans as their underworld--where their souls find their way after death. As Tom comes close to the star, it explodes, and he becomes "reborn", along with his wife. Together they will live forever.

This is a rather difficult movie to understand or to follow. I will admit that I still don't know exactly what has happened, nor will I be so arrogant to say that I will ever understand. This is not the best movie of the year, nor is it the worst. It lies in that vague gray area in the middle and doesn't lean towards either side. But my 'interpretation of the film leads me to assume that the future Tom is a struggle of Tommy's inner psyche trying to cope with his wife's impending demise. The Past segment would be the story that Izzi is writing (called 'The Fountain'), and that Tommy starts to read. Of course, this could be wrong, and it probably is...but I'll leave that for you to decide, reader.

The performances in the film are, for the most part, static. Hugh Jackman seems to have the same somber look on his face throughout the duration of the running time. Rachel Weisz never stops smiling pleasantly in the 'present' story. She keeps staring the camera down in the 'ancient' story. Mark Margolis and Ellen Burstyn give the two best acting jobs in the film, even for their small side-character positions.

But this is not necessarily a bad thing; Tom/my/as is a serious character and rarely has the chance to be happy, and who can blame him really? His wife is about to die, he is stuck in a bubble with a big tree (no sarcasm intended), and he is a fierce Spanish warrior about to meet his doom. As for Weisz...I need not say anything except that she plays an 'optimist'.

The cinematography of The Fountain is very poetic and beautiful. Its yellowish hue and underexposed look convey sadness to me. It's truly a beautifully shot film, and Mattew Libatique deserves some decent recognition. The music is done by Clint Mansell, who surpasses all of his previous work (save Requiem for a Dream). Very beautiful and Oscar-worthy score.

The visuals of the film are breathtaking and I still cannot believe for the life of me that extremely little computer effects were used.

The film may fail, though, on a scale that would use the expression 'It's a little too full of itself'. Its themes are portrayed in a heavy-handed fashion, and its fractured and confusing storyline may turn some people off.

I have respect for Darren Aronofsky, and I tried to like the film because he made it. But I know now, as a very amateur critic, that you shouldn't do this at all. I accept now that all directors make at least one bad movie, and, although it isn't necessarily 'bad', it will not top his previous two movies.

I apologize if I have been a little vague in my review, because I am an amateur. But this movie is a little vague to me and I can't help but give it a...

5/10

Gigli (2003)

Possibly One of the Ten Worst Movies I've Seen

[9 January 2007]

'Gigli' stars Ben Affleck as a mafia hit-man with a soul. That's about it. He does not portray a character we like, nor do we learn to like or even sympathize with. His acting in the part is so wooden and forced is makes the acting from Revenge of the Sith look like The Godfather caliber.

But this in itself is not saying anything. Much of Affleck's career has been plagued with cliché'd performances (although at times this is not as much his fault as it is the screenwriter's or director's), although this one really tops it all. He makes Larry Gigli (like really!) come across as a complete and total (stupid) jackass. But like I said though, this is more the fault of Marting Brest--the writer and director of this nonsense. I don't know what his definition of 'dialog' is, but the fact that the f-bomb is dropped after every other syllable does not make a good screenplay, nor does it make a character sympathetic.

When one views Jennefer Lopez in her role in this movie, you might think that her scantily clad body is something that saves this film from being a crime against humanity. I'm sorry to all the men out there, but it doesn't. Her acting and dialog is so atrocious that it leaves a bad taste in the back of your throat (for which I hope you bought the large Coke). It completely turns you off when in fact it was Brest's goal to turn you on.

Speaking of Martin Brest (who treats film stock like toilet paper in this, or maybe I'm being a little harsh), it's still hard for me to believe that he weaseled all of these high class actors into the picture that can actually act worth a damn. I don't know what was going through Al Pacino's or Christopher Walken's head when they agreed to appear in this, but I've finally reached the conclusion that there is not one thing in this film that could not involve illegal substances.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Great Epic Film-making (Part One)

[9 January 2007]

JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings finally hits big screens as a huge epic of a film. The first part, Fellowship of the Ring, centers on a Hobbit named Frodo Baggins, nephew of Bilbo Baggins. He inherits Bilbo's magic ring when Bilbo decides to leave and stay with the elves. But Gandalf, a wise wizard who is also Frodo's friend and mentor, feels suspicious about this ring. In a revelation, Gandalf discovers that it is the One Ring--a device created by Sauron two thousand years earlier to enslave all free peoples and creatures under his command.

Frodo makes a perilous journey across the lands of Middle Earth with the help of Sam, his gardener. Along the way, the two encounter two others: Merry and Pippin, who join their quest. They reach the shady town of Bree and lodge at the Prancing Pony. There they meet Aragorn (know as 'Strider' at this stage), who guides them to Rivendell--city of the elves.

At Rivendell is held 'The Council Of Rivendell' where Frodo is charged to deliver the Ring to Mount Doom and drop it into the fires of the volcano. A fellowship is formed to protect Frodo--its members include Gandalf, Gimli, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Legolas, Aragorn, and Boromir. They set out on an epic journey across the world to reach Mordor and ultimately Mount Doom. What follows is a series of some of the most sweeping and heart-stopping battle sequences ever put onto film.

After such a long and winded summary, I definitely need to talk about the amazing technical accomplishments brought forth into this movie. The visual effects are nothing short of flawless. The sound design is specific and detailed and a treat for the ears. Howard Shore's sweeping score adds to that treat, creating a thematically-tied soundtrack for the entire fellowship that resonates throughout the whole picture.

Peter Jackson directs this with the style of an auteur who obviously respects and appreciates the literary medium of which he is adapting. His camera-work is flabbergasting on epic proportions (how many times am I going to say 'epic?). His writing, along with Fran Walsh and Phillepa Boyens is simplistic and perfect to each character he brings to life.

The acting is great as well. Elijah Wood as Frodo Baggins makes you believe in that character, even though he could not possibly function in a normal 'fantasy' movie. This can be both a blessing and a curse since just about every film that follows this you will look at him and see Frodo.

Ian McKellan's wonderful performance penetrates your mind as well. He conveys wisdom and intelligence and power all at the same time, but you still get away thinking that he is a kindly old grandfather. Which is a good thing.

A great start to a fantastic saga. 9/10

When a Stranger Calls (2006)

A Poor Excuse For A Horror Film

[9 January 2007]

"When A Stranger Calls" is the latest in the never-ending slew of Hollywood remakes churned out for no other purpose than to roll in the cash. I get frustrated when Hollywood puts greed and box office predictions over art. In this case, everybody involved had large dollar signs flashing in their eyes.

A plucky teenager named Jill Johnson (played by Camilla Belle like every other typical slasher flick teen) gets a babysitting gig at a wealthy couple's home, which has enough glass windows in it to put a high-rise office building to shame--apparently these people have no concept of 'privacy'.

Anyway, all is going well and dandy until the phone starts ringing. She picks it up and hears a man breathing heavily on the other end. 'Hello?' she says. More and more of these mysterious calls, until the man on the receiver says 'Go check on the children'. So there's some dude in the house who's hell-bent on scaring the living crap out of her, and killing her. 'Why?' you ask? Well, we never really find out, nor do we really care, because we are not with the stereotypical characters.

This seems to be a ripoff of the 'Alien' concept, which is that there's something in our space and it could pop up and scare the bejezzus out of us at any moment. Well, it failed (at least on the 'scare' part). It was directed by Simon West, a man responsible for such classics as 'Con Air' and 'The General's Daughter'. This man should be a TV director, because he has no style to speak of at all.

Overall, I think Hollywood needs to keep its grubby hands off of old movies. In this case, this was a remake of a film that wasn't even that good! Although, I will give the original marks for being able to actually scare me.

Poor - 3/10

Blood Diamond (2006)

Great Exciting Action Movie With Some Brilliant Acting and Dramatic Storyline

[8 January 2007]

Blood Diamond is probably the last great film of 2006, a pretty great year for movies. Directed by Edward Zwick and written by Charles Levatt, it is an action flick, I guess. Or a drama. Or both.

It centers on a man named Solomon Vandy (played to perfection by Djimon Honsou) who finds a large "pink" diamond in the rivers of Sierra Leone. Suddenly, his camp is invaded by government soldiers, but Vandy buries the diamond just before he is taken into custody. Meanwhile, a diamond smuggler, Danny Archer (in another great performance by DiCaprio) is caught smuggling diamonds across the border to Lebanon (?), and is jailed for a short period. He meets Vandy in prison and decides to use him to 1)find the pink and steal it, and 2)maybe, just maybe find Solomon's family (who's eldest son is kidnapped and brainwashed by rebel soldiers).

They set off on a journey across Africa, and with the help of journalist Matty Bowen (in yet another great acting job by Jennefer Connelly), they search for the pink, as well as Solomon's family.

As Richard Roeper stated: "Edward Zwick is the master of politically correct thrillers". Well, I wholeheartedly agree with him. Glory, The Last Samaurai, and the Siege were spectacular and suspenseful pictures with great acting, and I'm going to chalk this up onto that list as well. There are some great action set pieces that had me on the edge of my seat. But Zwick and cinematographer Eduardo Serra make it look easy.

James Newton Howard also contributes to the film with his wonderful score. His strings work and the African vocalist pieces are great, adding to the grim mood of the film. On a similar subject, the sound design is great as well. You can actually feel the bullets zipping by on screen with Christopher Assells' sound editing--it works as a complete synchronous style with Howard's score.

But I will hand it to the actors. They are the ones who truly delivered this film. This is DiCaprio's second film of the year (the first being The Departed), and he gives a great performance as the cynical Danny Archer.

Djimon Honsou is one of my favorite actors, so, naturally, I liked his work in this. But it isn't that I simply "liked" his work in this--he gave THE best performance in the movie. He handles the role of Solomon Vandy as if he IS Solomon. A truly moving character.

This is Jennefer Connelly's second best performance in her career I think (the first being Requiem For A Dream). She plays Matty Bowen, journalist for Vital Affairs magazine. She shows how great an actress she can actually be, but it will never top her Requiem acting.

Overall, this movie is violent, gritty, suspenseful, poignant, sad, and long. Clocking in at two hours and forty minutes, it is worth every scene.

Great film that should be nominated for Best Picture.

The Departed (2006)

Brilliant Acting, Brilliant Directing---Brilliant Movie

[8 January 2007]

The Departed (2006) Dir. Martin Scorsese by Connor Bailey 9/10

It's a shame that dear old Marty hasn't yet received an Oscar for his good work. I'm sure that he'll be nominated this year, as will the movie (although I'm tied between Marty and Alfonso Cuaron).

Anyway, the Departed is a remake of a Japenese thriller called "Infernal Affairs. This film stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Matt Damon in the leading roles. Jack Nicholson also takes a smaller supporting role as the evil and psychotic mob boss Frank Costello. Damon plays Costello's police informant, while DiCaprio plays exactly the opposite--the police informant inside Costello's outfit.

Both DiCaprio and Damon are charged with finding each other's identities, while Jack does his own thing. Through a series of close calls and wonderfully suspenseful moments, the film builds into a climax that you will still be thinking about after you've left the theater.

As with any Scorsese picture, there is lost of violence, language (which I was a bit turned off by, so call me a wuss if you must), suspense, and, of course, great acting. Nicholson easily delivers a powerhouse performance as Costello. DiCaprio and Damon are on equal footing with Nicholson for an Academy Award nomination. But I have to say that Jack impressed me the most.

Others like Alec Baldwin, Martin Sheen, Mark Whalberg, and Anthony Anderson give great performances as side characters. Whalberg is particularly memorable, and gives a whole new definition to the term "loudmouth".

And finally, onto good ol' Marty Scorsese. One would hope that he gets an Oscar this year. He will certainly be nominated, I'm sure--although, if it comes down between him and Alfonso Cuaron, I hope neither of them win, because I want them both to win equally as much.

If this film is not nominated for best picture, then I swear to God I won't watch another Academy Awards show.

Children of Men (2006)

Amazing, Flabbergasting, Awesome---Did I say Amazing?

[8 January 2007]

Alfonso Cuaron's latest film is an action/drama about a dystopian and bleak futuristic society where women can no longer propagate, and the youngest person alive has just died.

A former activist, named Theo (played brilliantly by Clive Owen) is kidnapped by a terrorist/freedom fighter group called "The Fishes". The leader, he is surprised to find, is his ex-wife (whom they had co-parented a child who has died, with another great performance by Julianne Moore). She charges him to transport a miraculously pregnant woman named Kee to "The Human Project"--mankind's last hope for survival.

Through the rest of the film, we are bombarded with some of the most amazingly spectacular action set pieces ever put onto film. Two of which are achieved in a single, unbroken take.

Which brings me over to the technical side of the movie. Emmanuel Lubezki's eye-popping cinematography deserves an Oscar. John Tanver's score is quiet and unobtrusive--perfect for the movie. Cuaron and Alex Rodriguez edit the movie with a swiftness and perfection that deserves an Oscar nod as well.

But the person who really makes this film is Cuaron himself. Even if you don't like the film, you cannot say that it did not have its technical merits. What I'm referring to, of course, are the amazing action scenes (people who have seen the film know what I'm talking about). I know I've said it up above, but I can't describe what was going through my head when viewing the long takes. (e.g. "How the hell did they DO that?!) Anyway, CoM deserves Best Picture (although it's a tie between the Departed and this), Best Director (tie again), cinematography, editing--hell, even the actors deserve some Oscars.

Overall, an amazing film, a great technical accomplishment. This has been a great year for the three Mexican directors. They're on a roll.