The-Kissable-Writer Reviews

Mr. Nobody (2009)

A meta-physical, philosophical love letter to the universe itself, thwarted from being a masterpiece by it's own unbridled ambition

[7/10 · 6 June 2010]

What would happen if ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND and 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY had a love child? Not MR. NOBODY, but it could be the nephew of said love child. Because although it sports ambition, some of the time it feels like one influence is killing off the emotional or intellectual resonance of the other.

To further elaborate, I liked large chunks of MR. NOBODY but can't embrace the whole as a success. Even a cirque du soleil juggler drops one every now and then when he's got too many balls up in the air.

On a side-note (before I forget), I found the music to be bloody aggravating. I find that's a common complaint with Belgian or French films. Something a little more haunting along the lines of the violin tugs of the REQUIEM FOR A DREAM score or the subtleties of the BENJAMIN BUTTON score might've done more to reinforce the poignant scenes.

The Belgian director is drawing heavily from films like BENJAMIN BUTTON, DARK CITY, AMELIE POULAIN, ETERNAL SUNSHINE, 2001 and REQUIEM FOR A DREAM. To make a film with such diverse influences that still makes the tiniest bit of sense is a feat. If there were an Oscar for best casting, this would deserve it with flying colors. I don't think I've ever seen such striking resemblance between actors portraying the characters from several different ages. Jared Leto is back in REQUIEM FOR A DREAM form, and I like the fellow's daring. Heavily heckled after 2007's risky indie CHAPTER 27, he dives into the deep end again and this time it works out brilliantly. His dreamy, cloudy, confused stare into the camera lens defines the protagonist perfectly. The supporting cast is in ship-shape form as well, Diane Kruger with the brittle ghost of the naive lovesick puppy teenager still in her, Sarah Polley's self-destructive depressive is thoroughly sad and convincing and the actress whose name I can't find on IMDb (the one who played his mother) displays the right degree of life-weariness that comes with being a single mother.

Unlike Nemo Nobody, I claim no ability to see the future but I am adept at educated guesses. Quite easily MR. NOBODY could become a cult classic and hailed more with every passing year by film aficionado's. Quite easily could word-to-mouth be the salvation of a film so poorly marketed. Let's hope so. It'd be a shame to see this fine film disappear from mainstream audience's reaches.

The Road (I) (2009)

Bleak apocalyptic moral tale that investigates humanity itself.

[8/10 · 22 May 2010]

Bleak apocalyptic moral tale that investigates humanity itself.

THE ROAD is absolutely breathtaking and almost unbearably moving, not in the least through the merits of the child actor Kodi McPhee. He really does a swell job in representing the moral core in a rotten apple of a world, and Viggo Mortensen hasn't looked so miserable since he was being cornered by an army of orcs in LOTR.

The casting of Charlize Theron as an object of desire and beauty from a lost world of light and flowers is inspired and she nails her part once again as we see her slowly losing hope and coming to the only conclusion left to draw namely that living isn't possible any more, only surviving, and that it isn't good enough. We also see Robert Duvall do what he does best, he's still a beacon of good-natured wisdom, gentlemenry and old-fashioned kindness.

The only complaint is that it takes so very long for a shimmer of light to appear through the thick gray clouds, that you feel so miserable half-way through the film you hardly have energy left to watch the last act. The ray of sunshine I speak of is the discovery of the bomb shelter with the food reserve. I guess many bleak, dark drama's have sluggish paces, one of my other all-time favorite films AMORES PERROS can be accused of that sin too. And I don't love it any less for it.

If you're looking for a movie with lots of chills, thrills and action scenes, this is not the movie for you. Watch THE BOOK OF ELI instead, the premise of which is almost completely identical, but turns into a religious action fable rather than a moralistic drama.

If you're looking for a deep, slow burner of a drama that may keep you up at night, this is it. McCarthy who won a Pulitzer for this novel and unlike similar brilliant novels by Nobel prize of literature winners such as BLINDNESS, this one's message doesn't get lost in the adaptation to film, and you never feel the wagging finger of elitism, the easy kick in the gut of misanthropy, nor is the meaning behind it all spoon-fed or the moral black and white.

The brilliance is easy to miss. Take for instance the simple fact that the cannibals are represented as vicious but above-all go about their activities very carelessly. They come home from a day of hunting humans and make small talk about the weather, they've been doing this for years and don't think twice about it. They keep their "cattle" like people nowadays would keep sheep or chickens and cut off an arm or a leg now and then, never more than they need to eat for that day. That's horrifying b/c I bet that's what I'd be like if there ever was a disaster which killed all fauna and flora. They wouldn't bite people's necks like vampires, they wouldn't turn them on a spit like so many caught rabbits or pheasants, or do any of the other things previous portrayals in Hollywood movies suggested. I'm sorry if I shocked anyone but if I have, a word of advice: don't see the movie b/c there are two scenes that near holocaust-degree of horror, the highest level of horror as far as I'm concerned.

The father-son relationship is expertly fleshed out and will be relatable for the audience even if the circumstances are extreme, there's still the same special bond that exists between some fathers and sons; the problem with many of these post-apocalyptic movies is they choose to pair up side-kicks who just met in order to have their protagonist tell all about themselves. A useful enough narrative tool, but following two characters who've been through thick and thin together and have no social awkwardness (which some screenwriters find so charming and disarming) interests me infinitely more.

If you're not skilled at reading between the lines, you can always read the lines. In other words the dialog is superb. The author has a knack for laying painful questions on you straight and direct. Here's an excerpt copy-pasted from the script.

BOY "I wish I was with my mom." MAN You mean you wish you were dead. BOY "Yeah." MAN You musn't say that. It's a bad thing to say. BOY "I can't help it." MAN I know but you have to. You have to stop thinking about her. We both do. BOY "How do I do that?"

There's no answer to that question. And McCarthy knows it. And the readers know it too.

Stunning film.

8/10

Funny People (2009)

Nuanced portrait of a sad clown.

[8/10 · 17 November 2009]

"Funny People" paints a life-like portrait of the stand-up comedy scene, the cast members all succeed at the difficult task of playing a character so close to their own persona without playing themselves entirely. Nuance is the keyword here as this is neither a laugh-out-loud comedy all the time, neither is a mature drama all the time.

This can't be compared with Knocked Up or Superbad at all, all of them are great in very different ways. Superbad captured the bromance, Knocked Up was about people stepping up to the task when life hands them a challenge and falling in love with somebody after a slowly growing friendship, Funny People shows how comedy routines are born and deconstructs the myth of "the one that got away" as well as the "purifying quality" of a near-death experience. For a comedy, it's a quite stunning piece of work that, so it appears, is not appreciated in it's own time. Just look at the scene where Sandler's character completely bombs on stage with his "dark material" because death is on his mind. Big thumbs up for this film, it's more than just another comedy.

2012 (I) (2009)

The most realistic effects in a disaster movie ever and a strong cast are wasted in an overlong, poorly written and cheesy film.

[4/10 · 14 November 2009]

2012 is the year the Ancient Mayans predicted the world would end. Perhaps they should have scheduled the film for 2012, because the CGI is ready for this story but the director most definitely isn't. Inadvertently hilarious fact number 1: the Mayan theory about the Apocalyps is a tiny footnote in the story. Number 2: The Academy Award for most appropriate tag line of the year goes to...: "We Were Warned". Yes we were.

Some of Roland Emmerich's previous movies were fun but very very guilty pleasures, one I'm still not ashamed of loving the - in my social circles anyway - popcorn classic "Independence Day". Lesser entries in this veteran disaster movie maker's career include "10,000BC" and "Godzilla".

It would've made a great radio contest to give away a meet-and-greet with the cast or something of the like if you could guess the budget of this CGI orgy. The right answer: $260,000,000!!! To get a scale on this, the disaster movie "Knowing" from earlier this year cost $50,000,000. This certainly makes you look at the controversy about the budget of "Titanic" back in 1997 in a different light, the sum of that 7-time Oscar winner: a "measly" 200 million smackers. I don't think the Oscar to budget ration will be quite as high with this disaster of a disaster film.

This was a film of a great many surprises, surprises in every department except where it matters: the plot. Considering the genre, the acting throughout the entire movie was without exceptions great. Should actors like Chiwetel Ejiofor, John Cusack or Oliver Platt receive an Oscar just for keeping a straight face delivering the script's epically cheesy lines? Another bright spot were the effects, the only fleshed out character of the film. The world sort of implodes and it's quite a treat to watch on the big screen. For me the scenes of the plane crash and the burning forest in "Knowing", or the rolling head of the statue of Liberty in "Cloverfield" were far more unsettling than the destruction of the White house by a mammoth of an aircraft carrier.

And the final scenes of "Knowing" were far more emotional than any of the goodbye's in "2012", there's one exception where I almost felt sincerity: the part where Cusack and Co have to land in the Chinese Sea and the kids realize that they're going to die, I have to credit the great acting of Cusack and the decent child actors for that moment. There's one scene that looked incredibly fake to me: the part where Cusack's running to catch the plane after the exploding Yellowstone volcano, you can clearly see he's standing still and just moving his knees up and down. Overall, these remarks are pet-peeves and the effects of this disaster movie are a landmark achievement.

The less pleasant surprise: what a tediously bloated film. 150 minutes! 150 minutes of a story that spans 70 years and takes us all over the world such as "Benjamin Button", that's entertainment! 150 minutes of cheesy dialog and paper cut-out characters is torture. This is not a joke: this was the first film since Savage Grace (well over two years ago) that I would've walked out of if I wasn't with company. How scary are tsunamis still when you've already been overexposed to destruction of whole cities, the Eiffel Tower, the Christo Redentor statue, and Woody Harrelson by way of a giant fireball.

At one time they travel on a plane and talk for about half an hour, a journey that could and should have been cut shorter. When they finally encounter a helicopter that can rescue them, they don't have the right pass and the script takes us on an unnecessary detour for about twenty minutes. That's about an hour right there, begging for the cutting room floor.

This is such a waste of deliciously cheesy potential. This was an attempt at the disaster movie to end all disaster movies, and that's admirable. In other ways it's just a redoing of "The Day After Tomorrow" with better actors and a bigger budget. The last thing I want to do is come across to the reader as elitist and humorless. I have dozens of guilty pleasure action flicks such as Lethal Weapon, The Last Boyscout, Mortal Kombat, Independence Day, Bad Boys, Speed, Wanted, etc.

I'd like to see a 90 minute fan cut of 2012 realized but this theatrical cut is an hour too long and will never find it's way to my screen again.

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Tarantino is back with a bang!

[9/10 · 2 September 2009]

I just left the theater so I'm still walking on air and will try to tone down the praise words in this '"high" state of writing. "Inglourious Basterds" - no that aren't spelling errors - is already declared film of the year by many critics, though I must add predominantly by the ones that have a sense of humor. In Tarantino's latest revenge parable, fire is fought with fire: Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) leads a group of scalping, brain bashing, trigger happy Jewish-American soldiers through occupied France. But, surprisingly, that's not the whole plot-outline. For the first time since his Elmore Leonard adaptation (Jackie Brown), The Big T. hangs on to correct chronology, and one can hardly call Inglourious Basterds a plot-driven thriller pur-sang but it's got some thriller-elements. Tarantino is restrained and he creates tension in his plot, and builds up to a climax beautifully.

Mélanie Laurent (playing Soshanna) is a slightly fantastic revelation and nice name to add to the list of "Tarantino girls", which has become an understanding much like - no disrespect - a "Hitchcock blonde". Her role requires her to play an understated kind of fear - the German soldiers musn't suspect her Jewish ethnicity nor her plan to blow up the cinema. After his brilliant moron in "Burn After Reading", Brad Pitt once again gets to fit the shoe of comic, and he wears it brilliantly. The part where he introduces himself in Italian to the German officer in quite possibly the thickest accent in cinema history floored me, and he steals about a dozen more scenes with his deadpan delivery of dialog that can only flow from Quentin's pen ("You know, fightin' in a basement offers a lot of difficulties. Number one being, you're fightin' in a basement!").

I thought the scene in the bar (with the three-finger order of whiskey) easily stood as brilliant among some good and excellent sequences (I'm not the story of the Negro coming to America? Then I must be King Kong then!) The opening scene was also jawdropping, the close-up of the hiding Jew's eye through the floorboards, amazing.

These are two twenty+ minute scenes, very talkative and large parts in German or French. Quentin doesn't need the dialog to be in English to create almost unbearable tension! That's one of the things I admired most about the film. Did the subtitles bother anybody? I hate how Tarantino casted his director-friend (not actor-friend) Eli Roth (of the horrid "Hostel" movies) as the Jew Bear. He barely manages not to ruin his scenes. Barely. Diane Kruger's capable of better acting, she's another weak link, especially since that other blonde (Mélanie Laurent) is SO good, it's not a thankful role for an actress/actor with not a great deal of experience in high-profile movies, your co-stars will overshadow you if you don't watch out.

I'll be surprised if Christoph Waltz (Colonel Landa), come Februari, doesn't get an Oscar nomination. We already know the Academy's much less conservative these last few years. The dark "The Departed" won best picture and Javier Bardem also took home the gold for his portrayal of a sadistic "basterd" Wink.

At the time of writing, IB holds the number 35 spot (IMDb top 250). Pulp Fiction still stands strong on 5 and Reservoir Dogs claims number 71. Mathematical conclusion: IB is Quentin's greatest movie since Pulp Fiction. Reviewer's conclusion: damn straight! The Verdict: 8.5/10

Two Lovers (2008)

James Gray finally realizes his potential!!

[8/10 · 30 August 2009]

This is a genuine masterpiece. Vinessa Shaw and Gwyneth Paltrow star as Joaquin Phoenix' two lovers, who are involved in a time bomb of a triangle relationship; the film deals very well with how people are drawn to people who need them rather than people they need, how scarred people will fall back on self-destruction because they believe they don't deserve to be happy, and how difficult it is for a damaged person to dare hope again.

This gem cost 12 million. That's one tenth of the Transformers 2 movie's budget. What a sad sign of today's cultural wasteland. I hope you'll find some time in your busy day for this film.

I Love You, Man (2009)

Paul Rudd as a leading man, at last!

[8/10 · 30 August 2009]

While my search for a crystal ball as of yet still remains fruitless, I can't predict the future with hand-in-the-fire, steady-handed certainty and confidence, but I will tell you there's a 95% chance I'll declare this the most complete and consistently funny comedy of 2009 when the time for best-of lists rolls around the corner.

Before people get annoyed with the term ( too late?), ILYM is a "bromance"; the non-sexual love, well friendship, story between two men. Realtor Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd) is struck by a weird realization after proposing to his girlfriend Zooey (Rashida Jones): he's never had a best friend. He's never even had close male friends. He meets Sidney Fife (Jason Segel) at an open house and they hit it off immediately. Zooey begins to worry about the closeness and time consumption of the fellas' friendship and Peter's never learned how to talk or act around male friends. He constantly tries to force cool 'slang' into his vocabulary (he nicknames Sidney "City Slicher", in an unfortunate burst of spontaneity) and they jam together in a garage. Peter struggles to balance his new-found lost adolescence and his sense of responsibility in the weeks before his marriage.

I Love You, Man is 2009's "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" and proves the upward arch of mainstream comedy quality since "the 40-year old virgin", comedies with heart are taking over from misogynistic, gratuitously violent and inappropriately disgusting or dirty comedies.

State of Play (2009)

Intelligent, tasteful thriller with all players in good form.

[5/10 · 15 August 2009]

I believe in today's cinema, films have never looked or sounded better and fine actors manage to find their way to fine directors. There's one stipulation: the industry targets teens. Once you've seen a tastefully done, intelligent film actually aimed at adults instead of teeny boppers, you just have to admit to yourself you're in for a two month dry spell.

"State of Play", the remake of a 2003 BBC mini-series, is one of those rarities. An all-star cast comprised of Russell Crowe, Helen Mirren, Robin Wright Penn, and the criminally underrated Jeff Daniels work together with less experienced thespians such as Rachel McAdams, Ben Affleck and Arrested Development's Jason Bateman, all under the confident guidance of Scotland's cinematic pride Kevin Macdonald, whose "The Last King of Scotland" gets defined by Forest Whitaker tour-de-force acting but never on it's own merits, unfortunately.

The title "State of Play" is defined as "the current political situation", what's the status of the players in the political field at this very moment. And that's exactly where the film takes off. A multi-national company by the name of Pointcorp supplying the bulk of arms to the US's oversea forces is under investigation by Congressman Collins (Ben Affleck). When the lead researcher of Collins' team dies under suspicious circumstances, investigative reporter Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe) starts turning over rocks and finds himself between a rock and a hard place when he's cornered by his own boss and PointCorp's unofficial employees, the more he pulls the roots of the tree out of the ground, the more he realizes how far PointCorp's influence has spread.

Regulars of "Arrested Development", or folks who watched last year's summer blockbuster "Hancock" will be pleasantly surprised by Jason Bateman's impressive dramatic performance. Yet another reason to not let this old-school thriller pass you by.

Seven Pounds (2008)

Almost unbearably moving dark drama with an ingeniously constructed script and a masterful performance by Will Smith, who is well underway to Academy Award worthiness

[9/10 · 18 May 2009]

Featuring a fascinating performance by Will Smith and a story that tugs at your heartstrings harder than a rock guitarist mid-solo, "Seven Pounds" races past the director's previous collaboration with the actor (The Pursuit of Happiness), a flick which I also loved. Remember Gabriele Muccino's name because some of his movies may skip by unnoticed if the actor attached to the project isn't quite so high-profile.

Too bad I figured out Will Smith's scheme early on, I put two and two together when he calls in his own suicide in the first scene and the scene when Rosario Dawson's character is introduced as having an incurable heart-disease.

However, I still think the writer/director made the right choice putting the bookends (bookends are the first and the last scene) in that way, it's the source of urgency and tension in the movie, finding out gradually how exactly a man can be driven to that ultimate sacrifice, and it was heartbreaking to see the relationship between Smith's and Dawson's character flourish and develop, knowing in the back of the mind always what was in store for these unlucky two.

One of my friends with whom I saw the movie thought Smith's character could have a divine gift, and I understand why: his performance is almost angelic when in the presence of his seven elected ones, yet at other times he could be harsh and scary, and when he's alone the full weight of his situation got too much for him and he breaks down completely. It's quite a versatile performance.

Lastly I can't forget to mention the crash scene re-enactment, which was really quite stunningly done in terms of cinematography paired with music. Put this on your list.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

The Kissable Writer reviews David Fincher's "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" (part2)

[9/10 · 18 April 2009]

For you wonderful people hopefully still enjoying my musings of questionable value but guaranteed real emotion and passion, you'll find a lot of elements discussed in this review, but I refuse to bash the movie on account of it's crazy enthusiastic optimism, so disaster tourists and pessimism-is-realism snobs can take the next exit out. In case you're wondering, I didn't write this review in a fever dream of ecstasy right after watching the film, I let it sink in for a week, and believe it or not I took a 300 word chunk out.

You see, "Benjamin Button" is not a dialog-heavy movie, it is not a 4 hour soporific trial, but there are scenes so beautiful in it I almost can't stand it, I can write a thousand words about such a scene alone, this probably is what it must've felt like for American Beauty's eccentric voyeur to see the plastic bag dancing and twirling in the wind.

Blanchett's Daisy and Pitt's Benjamin eventually do get together, even long before they "caught up with each other" age-wise. This junction leaves me with the fewest words to spill out, yet it's the best part of the movie, it's a challenging task to do any degree of justice to a love story worked out in detail on the screen. Daisy is the first girl to notice that Benjamin's a special boy. They share a moment under a blanket(no, not in that way) but soon enough life happens and Benjaming takes off on a tugboat and unwillingly ends up in WW two. He writes her whenever he docks a new town and doesn't relent in doing so for a great many years. When he returns home, she - at the age where her hormones are racing - wants their relationship to crystallize in something physical, but he as old as he looks hasn't reached that maturity yet. Hurt, she loses some wild hairs when she moves to the city to pursue her artistic ambition as a ballet dancer. He very sweetly tries to woo her on a surprise visit and is hurt on his turn when she displays no enthusiasm towards him whatsoever. Again they tragically part ways. Fincher turned the genders around as Benjamin symbolizes the girl who isn't ready to sleep with her far more eager boyfriend yet. "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" is filled with these subtle innuendo's and double bottoms. For instance, he demonstrates how the stars can align just as plausibly to drive two people apart as fate can bring them closer together. A series of the most unfortunate of small events costs Daisy her dancing ability, after which she is too humiliated to let Benjamin take care of her.

The two soul-mates ultimately do lock lips and experience many happy years together, as she matures physically and he matures mentally, their love grows and they couldn't be more in love than the moment right before they part. Which brings us to the most surprising plot twist in the confident, not plot-driven film namely: Benjamin leaves Daisy way before he's forced to in an effort to give her the opportunity to find a second husband and mostly a father to their newly-born daughter, who is perfectly baby-faced by the way. Another surprising scene tells about a later re-encounter between the two broken hearts, making for one of the movie's very best scenes.

They picked up the pace for a lot of the scenes in Benjamin's later, pre-pubescent life, as they contour the bleeding heart of the movie, the fleetingness of everything, even love can not stop time. Mortality is an endlessly interesting theme, yet most movies steer clear of it consciously. "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" is a musing on it, and even though the odds are stacked against it, it un-selfconciously embodies hope, optimism, beauty and it succeeds in reaching an emotional plateau that will give future filmmakers nightmares in awe of the achievement.

"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" is a grand movie sans the pretension, it is an intelligent movie sans the esotericism, but most of it all it's a movie with a tremendous heart and emotional intelligence that, helped by it's dreamy style, elevates the viewer into cinematic heavens.

9.5/10

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Rags to riches fairytale that wins hearts.

[8/10 · 23 March 2009]

Destiny is to drama what codependency is to romance films. At the start of Danny Boyle's "Slumdog Millionaire", the audience is confronted with the question: how did Jamal reach the 20 million question? a) he cheated b) he's lucky c) he's a genius d) it is written. During the course of the film the a, b and c options are eliminated as we witness the bizarre ways how a street rat gets to know the answers to every one of the questions on the famous show "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" Jamal and his brother are orphaned at a young age when their mother is slain in a religious hate crime. They live on a landfill until a mob like figure notices them and picks them up for the use of organized begging. At this point in the story, the two musketeers (as the brothers call themselves) have met up with a third, by the name of Latika. However, they do not know the name of Dumas' third knight. As in most great love stories, circumstances hinder Jamal and his soul mate Latika from being together time and time again: when it's not the ruthless underworld of Mumbai, it's Jamal's pathologically mean and innately jealous brother Salim, and even the game show host plays an intricate part in making their path towards each other labyrinthine.

I expected an uplifting family film but came out surprised at how gruesome and bare-boned the film turned out. There's one scene where a child is blinded for life with what I presume is hot oil that is particularly disturbing. Luckily for us, director Boyle also put in a healthy dose of comic relief and heartwarming moments. Especially the way the brothers gather sustenance and money is amusing. They hang upside down on the side of a train to steal food from travelers, and they charge tourists for a tour of the Taj Mahal with completely made up facts.

In many ways, "Slumdog" follows a traditional rags to riches trajectory, where one's lucky to escape poverty and with means comes love. However, what Boyle's trying to say is not sit on your behind and wait for fortune to find you. He's saying pursue your passion tenaciously. How lucky Jamel may be, he's partly responsible for making his own luck. He uses his street smarts to track down Latika, going in the mouth of madness to do so, namely his former mob begging and whore circuit. He doesn't even give up after Latika rejects him because he knows she's just scared and he needs to be brave enough for the both of them if he wants them to be together. "Slumdog Millionaire" is a very good film, no question, but it is not the great masterpiece of 2008, the way "No Country For Old Men" or even "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" was for 2007.

Choke (2008)

Nudered Palahniuk adaptation, never finds the tone of the novel.

[6/10 · 23 March 2009]

"Choke" is the story of Victor Mancini, an avid sex addict and med school dropout. He balances a degrading job as a performance artist in a ridiculously strict medieval village with conning people into sending him money. All this to pay for his mentally ill and dying mother's hospital bills. How he swindles people is most ingenious: he purposely chokes on food in fancy restaurant in the hopes of being rescued Heimlich-maneuver wise by a doctor or lawyer, who then in turn feels a parental responsibility for his well-being. He then continues to write them about money issues, and they usually 'cough up' some dough. The concept is expanded on in greater length in the book then it is in the movie. Don't try this at home!

I was surprised to find out "Choke" was picked out next for adaptation after the enormously successful "Fight Club" established Fincher and Palahniuk as cult-inducing authors. Having read a significant amount of Palahniuk, "Choke" exemplifies nowhere near his best received work. Still, it's a fun read, flaunting Chuck's lauded black humor and provocative edge. Filled with explicit sex-scenes and claiming "if you picture your mom you can keep from coming forever", the book would faithfully adapted result in an NC-17 film. Instead, first time director Clark Gregg files of the sharp edges (the monkey and chestnuts) and high concept touches (such as Paige Marshall being from the future and the building made of stones) and what we're left with is an adaptation that bares no gifts for the readers of the novel.

The film's not a total loss: Sam Rockwell is very good in the lead role, as he always is, Kelly Macdonald is solid but never finds her character, but the real shining stars are Brad William Henke, playing the protagonist's awkward best friend Denny with a tender longing for love and loyal camaraderie and Anjelica Huston as the Alzheimer-struck and fundamentally insane but caring Ida Mancini.

King of New York (1990)

Good enough to warrant some attention, though one can say a miss is as good as a mile...,

[5/10 · 8 February 2009]

Director Howard Hawks, immortal through his Chandler adaptation 'The Big Sleep', once said: 'A good movie is three good scenes and no bad scenes'. This might seem like a silly way to investigate a movie's quality, but it's actually a nice measuring stick if you want to know if a movie deserves to cost you the runtime. 'King of New York' just passes that line.

The problem with older style-over-substance movies poses itself here: stylistic novelties are one day flies. Movies heavy with them have a short expiry date. You may recall those silly giant heads bobbing in the the frame during the early nineties. For example, in Scorsese's "Cape Fear", Nolte's mug takes up half the frame a lot of the time. Who in their right mind would ever use that nowadays? The silly night club scenes in "King of New York" accompanied by the equally awful music suck. There's no denying it. They're a killjoy. A great deal of top notch eighties movies are marred by the soundtrack, "King of New York" can be considered a late eighties entry. I can turn a blind eye to the lack of a great script, as I've already stated: 'King of New York' is a textbook example of a style-over-substance film. Some elements raise the movie's level substantially though. First of all, it's deeply satisfying to finally see Christopher Walken as the lead. I feel he's still one of the funniest non-comedic actors in film history. Only the unique Joe Pesci's tragicomic portrayals are of an equally high order. Walken really immerses himself in his king pin character, one that is tailor-fit for him. He constantly finds himself in murky waters and he's very compelling in a movie that isn't generous in giving him sharp dialog to work with.

'King of New York' is easy on the eye. The night time scenes are pure shadows and velvet blue; the blue contrasting lovely with (paint)red blood spatters on the pavement in shootout scenes. The cartoonish color of the blood, unlike the disconcerting orange in "Taxi Driver", dampens the shock effect. We're reminded that we're merely watching a movie, and a highly stylized one at that. I guess 1990's censors were harsher than today's, but I don't mind it either way. I don't seek out movies for gore nor do I avoid them because of it.

The movie reaches a tension plateau during the exhilarating chase and shootout scenes, and the emotional plateau is reached in the subtly acted final scene. However, all these fine scene do not exonerate the movie. The plot is irrelevant, the dialog dull and the characters wooden. We are consoled by a great early Lawrence Fishburne and arguably Walken's career defining performance. Worth 103 minutes out of your day, but don't expect a masterpiece or you'll end up disappointed.

Sleepy Hollow (1999)

Visually enrapturing adaptation heavily marred by lack of intelligence and tension in the script.

[6/10 · 7 February 2009]

Beetle Juice, Batman, Batman Returns, Mars Attacks!, Planet of the Apes, Big Fish, Sweeney Todd and now Sleepy Hollow. That is the extent of my experience with Tim Burton. I don't often need to take the role of lemming upon me, but I'm left without choice.

"Sleepy Hollow" once again merely is a mask of visual creativity, unmasked however there's little pleasing about this, and every other, Burton film. The script flaunts a shocking lack of intelligence. The film's half and half divided between dark comedy and mystery, the first an instinctive like or dislike, the second an objective fail. Especially the final twist falls flat, the cliché scenes where the villain points out the exit of the plot's labyrinth in an overly long expose hardly possesses any punch due to the insufficiently explored characters (betrayal isn't much of a heart breaker when there's no real trust established to begin with), and the web of clues' only goal appears to be confusing the audience(did Burton really expect us to remember all the names of a dozen characters who've hardly registered on screen due to lack of screen time and unmemorable dialog).

Burton's rendition of 'Ichabod Crane' is not so much "some scarecrow eloped from a cornfield" (see Washington Irving's Classic Horror Story) as another self-aware, colorful for the sake of being colorful, character, though it's not hard to imagine him filled with hay(why do so many mystery films insist on selecting the dullest, most devoid of personality character as the mirror through which we view the story, rendering it less quirky?).

Elfman's score complements the pert visual style, the film's strongest suit beyond a shadow of a doubt. Opting for an almost b&w look (same as Sweeney Todd), he succeeds at injecting the blood shedding scenes with more vivacity. It's the strongest argument for why I feel Sleepy Hollow leans a lot closer towards a comic book film than a Gothic horror story adaptation.

Although I can't put my heart into recommending this film, checking out the scenes involving Christopher Walken's headless horseman may just be enough argumentation to give this movie one look.

Definitely, Maybe (2008)

Couldn't help myself from loving it.

[8/10 · 7 February 2009]

Yes, it's dangerously close to sappy and yes, it's fairly predictable but in a way you want it to be. From an artistic point of view it'd be great if after ninety minutes he suddenly gets hit by a bus or less dramatic if he just stayed alone and relatively happy. In some ways the bittersweet ending would've been more classy but for the sake of the warm fuzziness it'd be a disaster. 'Definitely, Maybe' will never be a great work of art simply because of the room for improvement still is too large. I bumping into these sort of scripts over and over again, why didn't the writers go that extra mile? A darn shame, it's not like you have to rewrite half a script to make it much better, just some minor imperfections needed to be worked out (well, some big ones too but I'll keep it positive).

'Definitely, Maybe' is a romantic comedy about Will Hayes (Ryan Reynolds) and how he fell in love. It all starts when the ambitious fresh out of college Will decides to move to the Big Apple causing him and long time girlfriend 'Emily' ( Elizabeth Banks) to drift apart, leading them to a painful and inevitable moment where 'Emily' drops the bombshell that she cheated on him and wants to 'set him free for his own good' (quote), all this shortly after Will's wedding proposal. (It's getting wonderfully complicated already isn't it?) At that moment, Will realizes that life is not the happy fun roller-coaster ride he thought it'd be and that his search for true love may never find a happy ending. We follow him through the highs and lows of his relationships with 3 different women, as he narrates the story to his ten year old daughter. Every time when Will meets one his big loves, he's sure it's the ever enduring love great novels were made of, but destiny may have something else in store for him. Love throws more than a few curve-balls and it seems our cheerful fairytale may not get a happy ending...

As you probably already figured out, the story is told in retrospect, which opens up a wide array of possibilities for the scriptwriters. Big time leaps become easy to insert, romanticizing of details is allowed - seeing that we are told a memory, not a fact - and the fact alone that the narrative is so unusual makes the story all the more intriguing and exciting for the audience. Not all of those possibilities are used as effectively or fully as they could've been. Just make the comparison with the TV-show with an almost identical premise namely How I Met Your Mother. One of the things that makes that show in question the highest quality comedy sitcom of the moment, is the cleverness put into the writing. In that show, the main character Ted tells his kids the story of how he met their mother, the audience gets to guess which one the mother will be. Of course, we get sidetracked in other unrelated events concerning the other characters, but still the main theme remains Ted's quest for love. To give you an example of the creative use of the narrative perspective, there's an episode where - seeing that Ted can't give a bad example for his kids - he keeps saying 'fudge' instead of the actual f-word and 'gringe' instead of...well that's kept up to the audience's imagination :-). Other examples include him telling one thing, meanwhile we get to see the exact opposite thing, this concerns almost always sexual - and thus inappropriate - events. I can go on and on but I don't want you to think I'm writing a promo for the show, I just want to show you how the writing could've been improved for comedy's sake or romance sake all the same, which was were the emphasis was in this film.

I'm a guy, in case you didn't know, and not a big fan of romantic comedies are all. They're usually - I'm gonna lose big points for this in the typical reader's opinion of me - excruciatingly bad. They give an unrealistic image of contemporary men and never give a man's point of view, plus I'm always having trouble locating the alleged comedy bits :-). But as James Rocchi beautifully observes, 'Definitely, Maybe' has an edge on almost all others in it's genre: 'where most modern romantic comedies are obsessed with the champagne fizz of chance introductions and initial attraction, Definitely, Maybe sticks around to see what happens when the bubbles burst. Every romantic comedy has the 'meet cute' where boy first connects with girl; Definitely, Maybe has the 'meet cute,' but it also has all the things that can come after -- the awkward moments, the scary possibility of hope, the comforts of sadness, the tough talks, the ugly partings, the hard-won reconciliations.' Amen.

I do like 'The Notebook', seeing that if you see the best of the best of any genre, it's enjoyable for anyone and I did like In The Mood For Love, High Fidelity and a couple of others. 'Definitely, Maybe' gets added to that list, and that's a huge compliment. In the end, I just couldn't help myself from loving it.

Flatliners (1990)

Never reaches the full potential of the ingenious premise, but entertains as a solid thriller.

[6/10 · 7 February 2009]

I eagerly awaited seeing "Flatliners" again after many many years since my first viewing as a youngster. Back then, all quality I searched for in a movie was encompassed in this one, hard to define word: cool. And even haters must admit, the premise of "Flatliners" intrigues. A group of medical students, smart at the worst of times and brilliant at the best, coast through life without intellectual challenges. As the Roman philosopher Seneca points out: There is no great genius without some touch of madness. Nelson (Kiefer Sutherland) devises a daring experiment which raises some eyebrows with his friends when he tries to recruit them for it: stopping the heartbeat in a controlled environment (a school lab) and swiftly resuscitating, allowing the guinea pig a peek behind the curtain of death.

Script writer Peter Filardi gets his mustard from the controversial near death experiences that, as stated in the movie, are the same for a lot of people regardless of religion or other variables. The most glaring similarities are talk of a bright tunnel of light and the presence of loved ones. Here's the juncture where Filardi takes a sharp turn in the darker direction.

The dream sequences during death, in "Flatliners", deceive with the pleasant form they manifest themselves in(peaceful images such as a Himalaya peak or a summer meadow) as they make real life into a nightmare. Each student gets beleaguered by incubuses, victims of past sins who've come to avenge their wrongful treatment.

The first time when a student gets thrown into the lap of the gods, it makes our pulse race. The second time, it still excites. The third, fourth and fifth time are overkill. So that's flaw number 1: the pacing. Flaw number two is harder to forgive or even turn a blind eye to: a serious lack of imagination in the second half of the movie. For any movie that's damaging, for a movie dealing with the exploration of the afterlife it's a bullet through the heart. The revenge and atonement story exists only by the absence of an interesting route to depart on from the near death experience scenes. The movie doesn't pay off, it neglects to deal further with the issue it addresses at the beginning. A definite solution to the mystery of death or near death experiences can of course not be demanded, but Peter Weir's "Fearless" has shown a middle route exists when dealing with unsolvable issues. Weir has a sleight of hand to craft a satisfying, lingering pay off through ambiguity, Shumacher doesn't manage to make the ambiguity work for him so he casts it aside.

Never the less, I had a good time. I enjoyed it as a straight-forward supernatural thriller. Sutherland convinces as the infant terrible of the group, comedic actor Platt gives a surprisingly good dramatic performance and the rest of the cast hold their own (except for the insufferable William Baldwin). The Gothic locations and colors (heavy reds, yellows and blues soak the screen during intense scenes) lend a sultry, dense, stifling ambiance to the movie. At one point we hear ghostly howls and see a wounded dog emerge from out the blue mist. You either experience the chills and thrills of such scenes, or you miss out on them. Same goes for Shumacher's camera handling style. Just like in 'The Lost Boys', he stalks the victim with the camera a lot, a technique you either frown upon as cheesy or agree with as creepy.

Changeling (2008)

Multi-faced addition to Eastwood's oeuvre.

[9/10 · 7 February 2009]

As a cinema addict I just wish some directors were granted immortality as an accolade for their genius gifts to the world. In the same way I'm mad at Kurt Kobain, Ernest Hemingway and Edgar Allen Poe for instigating their own premature deaths, I'm mad at The Almighty himself for allowing the greats to perish. The Hollywood old timers strike me as only refining and honing their skills as the hourglass empties. Lumet's aptitude, at age 84, showed again in the uncompromising masterpiece 'Before The Devil Knows You're Dead' and here Clint Eastwood proves he's still sharp as a tack at age 78. Eastwood, not in the least as a result of his role in the 'Dirty Harry' series assumed to be extremely conservative, surprised friend and foe in 2004 with the truly remarkable euthanasia drama 'Million Dollar Baby'. Here the symbol of cool and machismo parents a feminist movie.

'Changeling' lends itself excellently for analysis as it's a movie with many faces. First it's a character drama, second it's a political thriller laying bare some sensitive veins of the LA police department, third it's a courtroom drama and fourth, some scenes remind us strongly of 'Mystic River', it's a crime thriller centering around the notorious Wineville chicken murderers. Luckily for us, Clint uses almost 2.5 hours of celluloid to tell the complicated story so every arch gets the attention it merits. I'm positive Eastwood had the studio breathing down his neck during post-production, any film over 2hours runtime is by definition less suitable for promotion, luckily for true and patient movie fans like us here on IMDb Clint Easwood has the courage of his convictions.

The movie opens with a short tracking shot sketching a '20s middle class neighborhood, accompanied by a delicate, elegant tune, composed by Clint Eastwood himself. He earlier brought forth a remarkable, moving score for 'Grace is Gone' last year. First the picture's completely b&w and then the colors slowly drip in, still leaving a pretty bleak color look at the end of the opening credits. Christine Collins (portrayed by Angelina Jolie) and her son wake up and start their run-in-the-mill Saturday. However, an emergency causes her to have to rush back to work for a short while; meanwhile her young son gets left home alone. Her work ends late and when she returns home she finds he's nowhere to be found. In a state of panic, she calls the police and to her astonishment they don't take her cry for help seriously at all. Months go by until finally the notoriously corrupt and unscrupulous L.A.P.D claim to have found the boy. When she reunites with him at the train station, another unwelcome surprise awaits namely the boy is not her son.

Hungry for positive press coverage, they manipulate Christine's mother instinct ('the boy has nowhere else to go') into taking the boy 'home'. Several inches shorter and circumcised, the kid is obviously not hers but the stubborn LAPD possesses immense powers (they're judge, jury and executioner) and when Christine insists on renewing the search for her son, they bend the rules to declare her insane. I have not scratched the surface of the compelling true story here but my space is limited. Needless to say, the story's unlike anything you've ever seen - I can't recall a movie dealing intensely with police corruption since L.A. Confidential - and the cast's performances do justice to it.

Jolie's Christine Collins is complex - the actress is not afraid to throw her whole acting weight into the heavy scenes but understates the rest of the time(surely by Eastwood's advice)- a good-natured woman with no ulterior motives, no message to spread or agenda to push, as she states multiple times: 'She just wants her son back'. Jason Butler Harner, introduced late, steals the film as the disturbing, hell-fearing child killer, the rest of the cast also hand in great work (even though Jeffrey Donovan's Irish accent fails hilariously).

'Changeling' makes for another excellent addition to Clint Eastwood's oeuvre, whose multiple faces will make it pleasing for many demographics, a sure-fire new classic. It establishes Eastwood and Jolie once again in their status as two the most redoubtable in the business.

The Life Before Her Eyes (2007)

Moving and well-acted drama mourning the loss of youth, it mesmerizes until the very end.

[9/10 · 7 February 2009]

'The Life Before Her Eyes' (if you ask me they should have just stuck by 'In Bloom') tells the story about Diane, a victim in a high school shooting who suffers from an extreme case of survivor guilt; the audience witnesses the story in flashes cutting from a young Diane (Evan Rachel Wood) to an adult one(Uma Thurman).

'The Life Before Her Eyes' makes for director Perelman's always difficult follow up to his widely acclaimed debut 'House of Sand and Fog', the very tough to swallow (because of it's heavy nature, not because it's unbelievable) drama that gave Connelly a chance to stretch her dramatic muscles again (see: Requiem For A Dream) and for a change placed Kingsley in a movie worthy of his talents. Horner's score received an Oscar nomination, so Perelman wisely didn't change a winning team and took the composer under his wing again for this film. And his hypnotizing score spellbinds us from the opening credits right until the end, a perfect companion for DP Edelman's slow moving camera and flower-colored pallet.

The music, the slow motion water and nature scenes, the repetition of pivotal scenes, the way the pace almost dawdles, these elements create an accentuating background against which the story can unfold beautifully in all it's complex sensitivity, making sure of maximum impact with the audience. TLBHE's story involves a deeply tragic event, and the tragedy got under my skin and by the end it completely invaded me, mixed with my blood and will reverberate in my brain for a long time. What TLBHE essentially deals with is the loss of youth, it's a painful reminder of how fragile life really is, that bad things happen to good people sometimes and how powerless we are to random violence. Greater than the loss of anything physical is the loss of moral, the fading of ideals and the corruption of our souls, can we stop it and how do we do it? Dreams are shattered, and the only thing to replace them is a mild comforting emotion called acceptance. These are questions the film doesn't really deal with, but it evoked them, with me anyway. An attentive and committed viewer will not drown in the abundance of repeated scenes, but will swim in the waters of meaning this movie beholds...and will be moved.

What holds TLBHE back from being a masterpiece is the lacking script,which doesn't hold enough aces up it's sleeve to justify the ending, luckily the rest of the movie is saved by it's sensitive dialog and fine-tuned multi-layered performances, especially by Evan Rachel Wood. Her 'timeline' is where the movie really shines the brightest, the conversations between her and her best friend are signs of that blissful ease and those wonderful life discoveries that come with youth, yet also point out the agony of unfulfilled deep desires and longing for security and stability. Whereas the interactions between Diane and her mother underline the possible negative aspects of adulthood, how growing up can lead to the destruction of innocence and the freezing of the heart. 'I don't want to grow up to be a bitter woman who's angry all the time for no reason', young Diane remarks. At which her best friend replies: 'With a heart like yours, that's not going to happen'. Yet, some scenes later, adult Diane begins to act very much like the person she wanted to avoid at all costs to become.

One of the aspects that amazed me most about this film is how I didn't doubt for one second that Wood and Thurman were the same character. Besides the lack of very much physical resemblance. A very odd sensation, I must say. I doubt we'll be seeing any Oscar nominations here, but critics should at least take note of them. It may not be too long before one of these leading ladies will be up for the highest honor.

TLBHE ends up being a more than solid confirmation of Perelman's great dramatic talent, and by the familiarity of the subjects displayed and the convincing acting it is very likely to move viewers, I know it moved me.

Fireflies in the Garden (2008)

Here on earth come emulating flies, That achieve at times a very star-like start. (Only, of course, they can't sustain the part.)

[7/10 · 7 February 2009]

How many percent of the earth is populated by writers? And does the same ratio count for the figments of imagination that inhabit our little screen? How many writers use their work to conquer their demons, usually to get rid of the grenade fragments left over from growing up in a dysfunctional family? Michael Waechter just finished his latest novel; serious literature. A merciless word storm, written in pure gall, a not to be misunderstood way of slaying his demon namely his terror-prone father. Previously only occupying himself with sugar sweet love tales, this indicates a radical change in Michael's authorial style as well as in his way of dealing with his troubled existence.

This is where the characters' journeys start, for our protagonist it's a search for a way of forgiving his father, his path is ridden with the verbalizing of a ton of words unsaid too long and energetic arguments, as the audience gets sucked in further and further the - in the beginning only skin-deep - dramatic tension mounts. The picture uses it's runtime skilfully, the development of the 'original' characters occupies nearly all scenes, once in a while the director permits us a small pause to catch our breath and reflect upon what just went on. The new generation (children Christopher and Leslie) clearly are being presented to us as a reincarnation of Michael and his young ante Jane, of who it's fair to say they grew up close enough to almost be brother and sister - the unmistakable physical resemblance alone says enough. The only significant difference is the nature of fathers, they have the luck of having a loving, gentler father who unfortunately is away a lot on business, where as Michael's father is the hard, domineering type, the kind of father who maybe loves his family a little too much to be healthy for him, or his family for that matter.

Herein eventually lies the human quality of the character and the redemption. Hereby we can wholeheartedly accept - even though it appeared not to be true for a very long time - Michael forgiving his father, which culminates in a catharsis-classic: the burning of his newborn baby book in the fireplace, and we can even rejoice in Michael regaining personal freedom.

Now, for those who are not convinced the father deserves being forgiven, that's not really the core of it all. The point is this: even deeply rooted hate, however justified, has to be overcome in order to be happy. Hate is so powerful it can and will easily consume the one who holds the grudge and it often destroy families. In my opinion the whole film is centered around Christopher, in order to save the child's still pure soul, Michael is forced to take that last, hard step towards full maturity.

A simple movie? Maybe. Simplistic? Absolutely not. Above everything else, this movie is oh so full of truth and genuine emotion.

1408 (2007)

1408: shining the spotlight on the ending of the theatrical cut.

[7/10 · 7 February 2009]

This dark horse of a film walks a tightrope: how do you adapt a Stephen King psychological horror story set in a hotel without awakening "The Shining" fans' wrath? Working off a skimpy three dozen page novella, director Mikael Hafstrom sparks interest in and empathy for his protagonist, the morose pulp word-smith Mike Enslin (John Cusack) as he duels with an evil f-ing room. Hafstrom is clever enough to use the horror from within, but his true masterstroke is the concept of repetition as hell itself. The latter being a concept touched upon by another Stephen King's short from "Everything's Eventual" (the same bundle in which "1408" is published), namely "That Feeling, You Can Only Say What It Is in French". I think it's a safe bet that's where Hafstrom got his mustard.

ENDING: Mike lights the room ablaze (literally a hell of a way to go) and survives the inferno miraculously thanks to his wife's intervention in the nick of time. As he later rummages through his charred possessions, he finds his trustworthy voice-recorder. He presses play and hears a record of his encounter with his dead daughter in 1408. He throws his wife, who had been skeptical about the whole ordeal up until this point, a look with worlds of meaning in it. FADE TO BLACK.

If one takes the events at face value, the end brings forth a resolution: what occurred in that room really happened. When digging deeper, another theory is unearthed, based on the old switch-a-roo past the half-way point. Let me set up the time-line for you: First Enslin takes his surfboard out for a spin and an aggressive tidal wave knocks him senseless. He washes out onto the shore. Then he sets foot in The Dolphin's notorious hotel suite. After a series of events where the room toys with Enslin, it floods and he wakes up on that very same shore again. A plane flies through his field of vision sporting a phone number containing the numbers 1,4,0 and 8. An epilogue plays out that seems to conclude the movie. However, in a spectacular and haunting scene, he discovers the epilogue is a dream. He exclaims "I thought I was out", as he finds himself located back in the room. Then he throws an impromptu Molotov cocktail, survives and plays the tape as elaborated on in one of the previous paragraphs.

The way the plot folds back onto itself in the middle of the runtime fuels the theory that Enslin is still in room 1408 after he hears his daughter's voice at the end of the movie's runtime. In fact, the one ending creates enough ambiguity to feed no less than three theories. Bear with me now as I explain.1)Either he's gone insane and everything in the room is a figment of his imagination. This is quite plausible as he's plagued by flashbacks in which we learn his child has died, he's left his wife and his father suffers from Alzheimer's. Reason enough to not have his ducks in a row. This is a much used variant of the 'it-was-all-a-dream' cop-out. Lately the 'he-turns-out-to-be-schizo' cop-out is more frequent still. These are not very satisfying conclusions.2)Or he's really out and has conquered his personal demons by pouring his heart out in his new book.3)Or his wife is stuck in the room. This stems from the people who don't buy the Enslin in the epilogue being real. The strange, bordering on evil, look Enslin throws his wife at the very end can signify a demonic clone, much like the one that beacons his wife to come get him (on the computer screen).4)The last lines of Enslins new book are: no more ghost stories for me,I've checked out. But has he really? This is my personal favorite theory: he's still in the room! Follow my train of thought: There are some similarities between when the room first fools him into thinking he's out, and the epilogue(after the fire). First of all, both plot twists come forth from a destruction via natural elements(water and fire). Second of all, both times he ends up with the best life one can dream up: his wife forgives him, and he's got a foot in the door of reprising his marriage where he left it. Third, he writes the same book. His wife asks him how he can write so fast, he replies: simple, I've wrote this book once before already.He is forced to relive this hour in the ninth circle of hell(see "Dante's Inferno")until all eternity. Possibly as a punishment for his egotistical road of life: abandoning your wife after the death of her child because you can't stop wallowing in self-pity? Big misstep.5)A slight nuance on that last theory: Enslin really died in the surfing accident and is tested in 1408. The result will determine whether or not he gets into heaven. Heaven: if he takes the room down with him (the selfless choice). Hell: if he commits suicide. A lot of religions name suicide as the ultimate sin because you basically defy God by refusing the gift of life. The repeated hour in 1408 is purgatory.

Additionally, looked through my storyteller glasses, it's also much more satisfying than a cliché death of the hero (director's cut). Such an intensely emotional movie is required to end in one of two extremes: either he escapes safe and sound and the room gets turned to cinder or he meets his demise and 1408 survives.

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002)

The "Hitman"

[7/10 · 7 February 2009]

"Confessions of a Dangerous Mind", George Clooney's tongue in cheek directorial debut, is an adaptation of Gong Show creator Chuck Barris' memoir in which he claims to have murdered dozens as a secret agent. Clooney did well in casting Matchstick Men's Sam Rockwell as the lead.

"I wanted to be a writer once.I wanted to write something that someday some lesser person would quote but I never did because I'm the lesser person"

Rockwell's the go-to guy if you need to cast a tragicomic role. He's the stranger you meet in a shabby bar who tells you jokes all night long, laughing along with them, and gets "Frank Sinatra, she shot me down, give me a cigarette, King of Sad" when he's drunk (that's a Vanilla Sky quote). He's the corporate yuppie whose eyes will always be too big for his stomach, the kind who buys a new type of Porsche every year just because the new one has leather seats, the insatiable writer who wants to capture every little life truth in 2D. That is, the characters he portrays send those signals. He also seems like the kind of actor who loves his job, as his grins and glee seem sincere.

"I intend to be very important"

Barris is the kind of man who has no clue as to where his ambitions lie, just that they're huge. He strives for a career in television because "it's an industry with a future", in other words a quick way to make a fortune. It's just like a man with money in his eyes to fall in love with a girl named "Penny" (Drew Barrymore), the endearing hippie antidote for Barris' obnoxiousness. He loves her "in his own way" - meaning not the way she deserved to be - while she loves him almost unconditionally. She keeps giving him second chances after he cheats on her countless times. She also gives him the idea for his first pilot, the Dating Show, with which he eventually gains access to some of his dreams. It's at this juncture in his life, a government agent (Clooney) approaches him with a strange proposal.

"I can teach you at least 30 different ways to kill a man with a single blow, Mr.Barris. It might help in future bar fights."

Barris' alternate universe where he works freelance for the government as an "assassination enthusiast", as a way to relax his mind through the rush of danger, most likely's a figment of his decaying mind. In real life that is, in the script Charlie Kaufman (Adaptation, Eternal Sunshine) takes the "hitman" double entendre as a given, though he winks at the audience about the implausible double life too. At one point, Barris stands in front of a theater background, an alley very much like the one he murdered someone in, and it gets wheeled out of frame. In another scene, Barris and another assassin (Rutger Hauer) fraternize and they're the only ones in Technicolor, the background is almost completely drained from pigment. Meanwhile music composed for noirs and detectives can be heard (exciting trumpets, dawdling drums and bas).

"Helsinki is wonderful this time of year. Especially the snow. It affords one solitude even in a city full of people."

It's as if the game show producer literally stepped into an old movie and his whole other identity has all the details of a child's fantasy. Meeting with mysterious, attractive fellow spies (Julia Robert's portrayal of Patricia is very sensual), encountering philosophizing old killers who share their experiences with you ("Killing my first man was like making love to my first woman"), having to find a mole in your own ranks before you find yourself staring down the barrel of his/her gun.

Clooney's in search of an identity as a director, he lacks uniformity in style. We'll sweep it under the rug as a sin of youth. First act scenes (the dates in the theater) are fuzzy yellow. While outside scenes are sober (natural colors and in focus), the heavily stylized yellow scenes of his first hit in Mexico could be taken directly out of Soderbergh's Traffic. The inside bar scenes bathe in pools of red (like indirect light from a neon bulb) and the montages are paired with some of Clooney's jukebox favorites of the decade. This, and the tone of the narration are very Scorsese. For instance: 'I don't know what was worse - that I was duped by that fat bachelor, or that it took seven of us to replace him'.

JIM: Over here, strawberry dick. CHUCK: How do you know those things? JIM: We know what she actually thought it tasted like. CHUCK: Really? I could never find that out. JIM: That's on a need-to-know basis.

Though some serious thriller and drama elements arise near the end of the movie, Confessions is an ink black comedy, excelling in dry humor. There are no real jokes but the fun lies in slanted looks, insane dialog delivered dryly, accidental killings and loveless sex. It's the kind of movie where mentioning you wrote a pop song gets you laid all the time, girls start to cry when you make a move on them (that's how horrified they are by the thought of you and her together) and you insult the biggest, most short-fused guy in the bar knowing you're going to get it on the chin but you're unable to stop yourself. Barris' drill instructor demonstrates a killing technique (hitting someone in the Adam's apple) on a volunteer, then - realizing what he's done - he mutters "Shit! I need another volunteer!". At this point Rockwell delivers this 'okay then, moving on' look. It takes a man with a sense of subtlety to pull these jokes off. Luckily, both Rockwell and Clooney possess such skills.

Se7en (1995)

Ambiguous, shocking, brilliant.

[9/10 · 7 February 2009]

At one point in "Seven", Detective Somerset points out that if the serial killer turns out to be the devil, that might live up to their expectations. But who precisely is the man named John Doe? He might as well be called 'the man in black'. He's a dark angel on a shoulder, mine and yours, whispering truths we never care to learn. He's that little voice inside ourselves we smother by apathy. He's the anti-conscience unable to relativize the evil forces in this world. Or maybe relativizing is just a term often used to mask the fear of facing horrors we're unable to understand and overcome. So we don't even try at all. Se7en is as much a thrilling puzzle as an ambiguous morality piece. It present us with a vile world of unpunished sinners where even the biggest heroes lose the fighting courage (Somerset), and even the most driven good do-er minds are corrupted (Mills). Sound familiar? While Noir cinema clearly influences Fincher's work, "Seven" plays in present America, and by doing so becomes even more original and relevant.

"Seven" at no point absolves the attrition ("When you regret your sins, but not because you love God.") philosophy preached, but the movie nevertheless sparks intrigue through it by making Kevin Spacey's John Doe incredibly smart and - sidestepping the cliché- not ego-maniacal. He massacres not for fame or as an ill-aimed attempt to avenge his childhood traumas; he ends lives to prove a point. A point he's so determined to make he's willing to give up his own life in doing so. The point in question: sinners deserve to die. Do they? We all carry the guilt of at least one mortal sin. Let he who is without sin throw the first stone. I feel a little soiled quoting the bible, being an agnostic. Fincher is an artist. He doesn't just state his point of view or tries to indoctrinate viewers. In most movies, everything the killer says is the opposite of the movie's message. Here, this rule does not apply. Why? Well, because the center of all that is good and pure in this movie, the young idealistic detective, succumbs to the temptations of vengeance killing. So we basically have two horses pulling in opposite direction. Ambiguous! I am firmly against capital punishment personally, but the movie does very well in studying it's characters thoroughly so their motivations ring true, twisted as they may be, they're authentic. Besides the brilliant script, "Seven" has many other virtues.

A fault of many good movies, the fault that lowers their status from great to good, is the lack of visual attraction. Many serious drama's flaunt production values that barely rise above documentary level. If you're using an audiovisual medium, actually use it. "Seven" includes some terrific camera shots, Fincher follows the Noir school in making optimal use of shadows, among others in a scene where the killer's shadow looms in the rain puddle and subsequently threatens Detective Mills at gunpoint . Fincher gives a creative spin even to fairly standard thriller elements. The chase-sequence in the hallway for instance, where the camera finds itself very far from the action so we see the detective chasing a tiny silhouette. Instead of using up my thousand words listing awe-inducing audiovisual elements(which I could easily accomplish), I'll spend some attention on a curious element, namely Brad Pitt's performance.

A character actor like Morgan Freeman can be compared to a singer like Frank Sinatra, he can't hit a false note if his life depended on trying to do so. Even if the end result sometimes is less than impressive, which occurs considering the multitude of roles he takes, he always saves some of the grace. Brad Pitt on the other hand received more spotlight on his looks than on his acting chops in the early days of his career. The growth process of his acting ability curves bizarrely. He performed remarkably in some early work ("Kalifornia", "12 Monkeys"), yet intersperses those bright bursts of talent with hammy, flat turns in "Seven Years in Tibet", "Legends of the Fall", and (certainly in comparison with Tom Cruise's phenomenal turn) "Interview With The Vampire". My best guess? He needs a lot of direction. Why else would Fincher get such a great performance out of him in "Seven" and, let's not forget, "Fight Club"? Freeman and Pitt are star-crossed by Spacey though, who - in a surprise, uncredited, appearance - steals the movie. He plays the villain with a familiar patient smart aleckyness, it's scary to think of how much of them could be living right next door. Who hasn't got a theory that they're dying to get proved right? How many of them will get the little push that they need? As Spacey himself remarked once, people don't recognize him in foreign countries because without his glasses he looks like an ordinary accountant. He's the ideal choice for John Doe, bar none.

Some critics have done injustice to "Seven" by naming it "a by the book thriller". A by the book thriller doesn't deserve to get this much recognition. A scintillating character study embedded into a thriller plot however, that's a whole different story. Speaking of stories, the greatest script writers have always understood the ending to be the single most important part of any story. From "Psycho" over "The Silence of The Lambs" to "The Usual Suspects", masterful conclusions have blown audiences away, flooding them with emotions albeit surprise or shock, anger or overwhelming sadness. This one is all of the above. And it ranks among the very best of the nineties, as does the whole film. It's not a stretch to call it the second most influential and second best thriller of the '90s0

The Game (1997)

They won't leave me alone! I'm a goddamn human-piñata!

[9/10 · 7 February 2009]

David Fincher follows up "Seven", the by "The Silence of The Lambs" influenced thriller that broke out of genre conventions and subsequently became the second most influential thriller of the nineties, with another puzzler. "The Game" lays it's cards out in plain sight from the get-go: figuring out the object of the game is the game. Which doubles the fun if Fincher's smoke and mirrors fool you.

When his unkempt brother Conrad (Sean Penn) first tries to warm him up for the idea of actually participating in "The Game", Nicholas Van Orton (Michael Douglas), aggravated, says 'he hates surprises'. Conrad pleads: 'It's a profound life experience'; prompting Nicholas to reply: 'Like a stroke?'. Fools speak the truth when they're joking. Van Orton soon finds himself in a roller-coaster with no seat belts, and he forcibly comes to an insight when the cart plummets into the abyss.

If there is such a category, I'd put "The Game" in with escapist thrillers: pretension-less, fun, keep-you-guessing films with twists as a goal onto itself. Therefore, people shouldn't stumble over the improbabilities in the plot. It's like reading Jim Thompson, a man who does not know the meaning of the word restraint as far as hardboiled characters and plot u-turns go.

Fincher directs straightforward thrillers with such a sleight of hand, I can think of no contemporary directors who can match his skills in the genre. Cinematographically, "The Game" was well ahead of it's time. It seems DP Harris Savides and Fincher make a great team: they also collaborated on "Zodiac". Both films' night time scenes take my breath away. Add three time Academy Award winning composer Howard Shore into the mix and what you get is a very effective psychological thriller.

Badlands (1973)

Mind-bending Malick.

[9/10 · 7 February 2009]

I was flabbergasted to read after my viewing that this 'Badlands' was a directorial debut. I found the cinematography absolutely stunning, the dialog interesting (and original as always with Terrence Malick) and the acting great. Two young, but soon to be legendary, actors like Sissy Spacek and Martin Sheen form a perfect 'modern' Bonnie & Clyde.

Malick paints a disturbing picture of the dangers of youth's apathy & depravity, Sheen's character being the culmination of it. He starts a killing spree, never relenting to think about the effects of his actions, never regretting or even feeling the need to decently justify his actions, not even to his sweetheart or himself. This is why I can see the reason why many people call him the epitome of pure evil. But more so, what makes this film so disturbing is the truth behind it. Usually in crime movies, we see an animal slaughter people, a raging gunslinging monster...it's easy for us to wrap our head around his motivations. He's insane, or a bad person, although it is arguable that there are no bad men only sick men. Malick doesn't give his audience that easy way out, we see two people who are completely detached from morals but they act rational all of the time, they're even highly sympathetic and friendly. Malick shows us the true nature of evil, that it is very often ineffable. It characterizes the ambiguous nature of the homo sapiens itself, the primitive inside of us. Many people don't like this answer, namely that man isn't as civilized as they like to think and don' t have a solution for a lot of things, especially mental illness.

The form in which it's presented cleverly positions itself opposite of the horrifying nature of the events. We have a breezy narration by Spacek's character, nearing the form of a diary being read in which the events are described as if it were the everyday boring occurrences of country life. But we see a deluded madman killing innocent people as if they were cattle that needed to be put down. That is about as close to an explanation as the audience gets, that the murders were all a necessity.

Needless to say "Badlands" is the strangest Malick movie I've seen, but it's definitely interesting to see a so unconventional approach to a crime movie.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)

Shane Black is a wizard of hilarious dialog. Top notch comedy!

[7/10 · 7 February 2009]

KISS KISS BANG BANG's greatest strength lies in cleverly knowing how to be self-aware without coming off as self-indulgent and arrogant. It's because it doesn't take itself too seriously and LETHAL WEAPON writer Shane Black's plot purposely hardly matters that the film becomes such a hilarious, relaxing time at the movies. Black's especially a wizard of coming up with outrageously funny back and forth's, the dialog in the lesser known THE LAST BOYSCOUT - perhaps the best post-1988 DIE HARD copy - also proofs Black's expertise.

When a blonde asks protagonist (and narrator, as he so eloquently points out in the beginning: "Anyway, by now you may wonder how I wound up here. Or, maybe not. The point is, I don't see another Goddamn narrator, so pipe down.") Harry about his profession to which he dryly replies: "I'm retired. I invented dice when I was a kid.", after which the blonde - impressed - nods slowly.

Robert Downey Jr., who plays our self-deprecating narrator, portrays him in the delightfully laconic way he's famous for. He's in a higher mode of hyperkinesia here than ever. Val Kilmer surprises friend and foe with a (moderately) impressive and hilarious turn as "Gay" Perry, Harry's "partner" (pun not intended). He plays an actual detective who's to help Harry prepare for an acting job. They may just be the most hilarious on-screen duo since LETHAL WEAPON legends Gibson and Glover. They're not "good cop, bad cop", they're "fag and New Yorker".

KISS KISS BANG BANG is a hilarious film noir spoof, and will have you rolling on the floor laughing. I can put my whole heart into recommending it.