aschein81 Reviews

The Descendants (2011)

Terrific acting from cast disguises paper thin soap opera story and overbearing musical score

[6/10 · 26 November 2011]

Pros: Acting performances all around, especially from George Clooney and Shailene Woodley as Clooney's 18 year old daughter. Clooney pretty much carries the movie by his acting alone, even when nothing of significance is ever going on. Also, the key characters are given a significant amount of depth, so no one really feels like a caricature, except for Sid (Woodley's boyfriend), who was basically written into the movie for a few quick laughs. Cinematography is also solid, as one would expect in a movie filmed in Hawaii. It never takes center stage - and is always a supporting role in the film, as cinematography and visuals should be.

Cons: The musical score, with its soft, Hawaiian, plucking guitar strings, is used far too often during the film - as if director Alexander Payne is begging for the audience to cry and care at certain moments. There are also too many instances of tears flowing from characters' faces (mostly Woodley's), as if the film is trying to direct the audience on when they themselves are supposed to tear up. It just feels too manipulative in these moments, as if this is a Lifetime movie or Dr. Phil episode, instead of just letting emotions and truth appear naturally. Also, the film feels way, way longer than it needs to be. This is essentially an 80 minute story stretched out to a bloated 120 minutes. It literally takes 30-40 minutes in the middle part of the film for Clooney and his daughters to track someone down, when that should have taken 5-10 minutes of screen time. Some parts in the 2nd half are plodding and slow, until we have the formulaic tearjerker finale.

Strong acting performances aside, I expected more from this movie's script, given the fact that I loved Election, About Schmidt, and Sideways. This feels more like an unfinished draft, with too much music and beautiful, lush beaches added in to fill in the void of a tighter, more compelling story. All in all, it feels more like a Lifetime or Hallmark station holiday movie, rather than a memorable piece of storytelling. I have a feeling this film will resonate more with female audiences, as this type of chick flick "affairs and backstabbing drama" seems more up their kind of alley. Maybe this is part of Clooney's marketing strategy now when he releases a movie? I noticed the same type of "chick flick" focus in much of the plot in "Ides of March" a month ago. I think the studios know that Clooney brings in the female audience, especially the coveted female audience over 40 years of age, so maybe they are now targeting his movies towards them? I sure hope not. I'm a male and I thought "Up in the Air" and "Michael Clayton" were brilliant, but these last 2 have really underwhelmed me.

The Ides of March (2011)

Strong acting performances fighting to break out of a sub-par story

[6/10 · 8 October 2011]

First off, pretty much everyone who has seen this film acknowledges the fine acting performances from the entire cast. This is evident for anyone who has even seen the 2 minute trailer for the film.

Personally, I found Evan Rachel Wood's performance to be the strongest of them all, and worthy of a supporting actress nomination at this year's Oscars. She demonstrates a great deal of nuance to her performance, typically speaking extremely quietly and by proving that less equals more. Hoffman and Giammatti are also spectacular, as always, however, they are not given enough scenes to work with in the entire film. Gosling is serviceable in the lead role, but I personally found his character to be somewhat flat and one-dimensional - we don't really see him at home, hanging out with friends, or showing much depth to who he is as a private person. We only see him as Mr. campaign manager/press secretary 24/7, and never really get to know anything more about him.

Clooney's style of direction is old-school, with scenes of dialogue that are slow-paced and go on forever, allowing tension to build up during individual scenes numerous times throughout the film. There is also very little music in the background throughout the film - it truly feels like a low budget character study film that could have been made in the 1960s. In my opinion, this is one of the film's strengths. Its style is the anti-thesis of the video game / ADD afflicted movie generation that theaters typically spew out to the average Mountain Dew gulping, 16-year old moviegoer hanging out at the mall with their friends.

The main problem here is that the movie has a very basic, typical soap- opera script that just doesn't take you anywhere or show you anything you haven't already seen in previous movies or political TV shows. The last 30 minutes is fairly weak, aside from an intense scene between Clooney and Gosling involving who has possession of a "suicide note." Its story and writing overall is deserving of nothing more than a late- night cable movie. It's as well acted and well directed as it can possibly be, but the material they have to work with is very unoriginal and uninspiring.

My rating of 6/10 might be a little low for some...I just prefer better scripts and more creativity in my movies. Some who are content with great acting may give this an 8 or a 9. It just depends what components of the movie you feel are more important. If you're looking to see very strong film-making in theaters now, I recommend seeing Moneyball and Contagion instead of this film.

True Grit (2010)

Very strong performances by Bridges, Damon, and Steinfield...but a very slow, simple, and boring story

[7/10 · 29 December 2010]

I must first admit that I have never seen the original 1969 version starring John Wayne, so I can't compare this film with that on any level. I just read all the rave reviews from this film on Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, and considering all the greatness the Coen Brothers usually churn out when they make films, I decided to see this with my dad today. I also know that this was picked as one of the Top 10 Films of the Year by the American Film Institute, and I usually agree with their picks when it comes to rating films as well.

First and foremost, this film is extremely well-acted by all of its principal actors, most notably Jeff Bridges, who once again has lots of fun creating a roguish, partially insane, quirky character and look. Bridges also supplies much of the comic relief in the film will all his strange antics and attitude. Damon is also strong in his very limited role. His character isn't developed very much, but he delivers his lines well when he gets his close-ups. Steinfield is also solid, as the whole film rests on her shoulders, and she allows us to see a strong and stubborn teen girl who refuses to see herself as a weak, 2nd-class citizen of the time period. The character actor who plays the horse trader at the beginning is also funny and spot on, as well as the lawyer in the courtroom interrogating Bridges, and Barry Pepper as one of Cogburn's formers gangleaders. Most of this film is all about the acting and characterizations of everyone involved, and the film succeeds on that level. This is why I am giving it a fairly decent rating overall.

However, at the same time I found the story to be painfully slow and far too simple for my tastes. Perhaps this is because this original was a family-oriented, PG-rated film when it was released in 1969, and it is told from a 14-year old's point of view, so considering that fact, it couldn't a be a more complex story with more plotting. It was almost something in the same vein as Disney or Little House on the Prairie, with some Coen Brothers violence added in sporadically, but still such a sweet and simple story without complexity. I'm all for character development over action scenes and such, but this move simply had too much character development in my opinion, as the first 80 minutes is just conversations and talking while slowly riding horses, without any suspense at all. Literally nothing compelling or engaging is happening on a plot level until the very end when they meet Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin - decent, but not given any screen time to do anything substantial). The film just plods along showing off the beautiful scenery in the background with characters talking and talking / exposition, etc. - but the Coens seriously needed an editor to cut some of the talking down. It's just talking withot advancing the story. I personally loved all the dialogue and talking in "The Social Network" - but in that movie the dialogue was always moving the story forward, and that was a more complex story. Here the movie just doesn't go anywhere until the last 15 minutes. They should have had some Indian tribes surprise them with shootout / attacks in the middle of the film a couple of times or something just to add some suspense and energy to the story. It was just way too simple and straightforward for my tastes. I prefer more complex plots that require more characters, more plot strands, and move at a faster pace. This just didn't challenge me or interest me intellectually - but I suppose that's how lots of Westerns are. Just shoot em ups scripts with good guys and bad guys, which is just boring for me. Again, the performances by the 3 leads are great, but I just wish the story had been more interesting and engaging.

127 Hours (2010)

"127 Hours" is a subtle analogy to America's current economic issues....should we decide to cut off "the invisible hand" and prevent reckless risk-taking?

[9/10 · 12 December 2010]

"127 Hours" is the true story of avid mountain climber Aron Ralston (James Franco - in the performance of a lifetime here), who decided to take a spontaneous hiking trip to Canyonlands National Park in Utah one Spring day in 2003 without taking a cell phone with him and without telling anyone where he was going. Unfortunately, while hiking through a canyon well below the ground surface a boulder fell down on Ralston's right forearm, therefore trapping himself in that location. Ralston was forced to survive on one full water bottle and one day's supply of food for 5 days - before he took the drastic and incredible measure of cutting off his own forearm to set himself free.

This movie is all about the art of immersing the audience with Ralston and letting us experience his psyche during the slow-paced 5 days of hell he experienced, with little to no dialogue for most of the film. Franco's performance overall is simply spectacular, and deserving of the Oscar for Best Actor (even though he probably won't get it because of his young age). The numerous close-ups of his face with his bloodshot, droopy eyes, clenched teeth, and veins popped out of his neck and forehead can only make me imagine the hell director Danny Boyle put him through while filming this movie. Boyle and Franco never wuss out when it comes to showing us the dark sides of life in the hole, as they aren't afraid to let us see large ants (real) crawling on Franco's face or him almost drowning to death during a terrential downpour that almost fills up the entire canyon one night.

As Ralston, Franco shows us a character that always lived life to the extreme and could easily be described as cocky and arrogant. In the first 15 minutes of the film when he is beginning to explore the canyons, we see him arrogantly flirt with a couple of young female hikers, and later in the film during some flashbacks we see his partying lifestyle where he believed that he was basically immortal. Yet while this overconfidence and arrogance is likely the reason why he got himself trapped in his dilemma in the first place, ironically it could also be said that both of those traits gave him the emotional strength to keep fighting as the days passed by.

One would think that a film like this would be either extremely depressing to watch or extremely inspirational to watch, but I personally found it to be neither. I was simply so immersed in the canyon with Franco that I felt as though I was just focused on doing whatever it took to get through the days and nights, just as he was, and that I didn't have time to feel a lot of different emotions. He's neither someone you truly root for, nor someone you root against, mostly because you don't really know much about him - it's just all about the business and strategy of trying to figure out what to do in the moment to survive. Also, I was pleased that Danny Boyle basically focused the entire movie on Ralston's dilemma in the hole with some sporadic flashbacks of memories with his families and friends, rather than adding on some kind of extra subplot with a rescue recovery team trying to find him or his girlfriend consistently waiting on the couch to hear from him back home. We see a few short clips of Ralston imagining his girlfriend talking to him, but it's all seen from the perspective of his own psyche and mental state in the hole - rather than creating scenes from a typical search and rescue plot.

The film is also a very subtle analogy to America's economic meltdown in 2008, and Ralston serves as symbolism for that. Danny Boyle clearly means for people to think about this in the film, as he shows a guy in a store in the beginning for 10 seconds with a t-shirt that reads "You can't lay me off today." Ralston is of course an avid risk-taker who does everything he wants individually, regardless of thinking of any possibly dangerous consequences. He just takes any risk he wants in the outdoors, and never plans for anything to go wrong. It's pure individualism and risk-taking taken to the extreme. It's a very fitting comparison to our economic structure of unregulated capitalism and gambling in recent years, and how we allow individualism on Wall Street to take risks with our money on a daily basis, without any kind of "back up plan" in case of unintended consequences. We now see ourselves (not just the United States, but also much of the world) still struggling with the effects of our economic collapse. Perhaps we can learn from Ralston by making some changes so we have our own preventive back up plan and focus less on "all or nothing risk-taking" individualism so we don't have our own tragic accident like this again. Ralston clearly decides that he has had enough of it, as he makes the choice of cutting off "Adam Smith's invisible hand" (his hand was under the rock, so it was invisible to him), to set himself free. No more unregulated capitalism and reckless risk-taking and greed for Mr. Ralston - he has learned from his mistake.

It's a shame that a movie with great acting and directing like this has only made a mere 7 million dollars after already being in release for a month now, and that it has only been released in a select number of theaters nationwide. This is terrific art to watch being created on the screen and I sure hope it ends up making a solid profit on its 17 million dollar production budget. Hopefully the fact that Franco is now co-hosting The Oscars this year will call more attention to it and get it some name recognition.

Fair Game (I) (2010)

"Fair Game" combines strong performances and compelling drama with a very personal look into the abuse of power in government

[8/10 · 12 November 2010]

One of the major events that President George W. Bush will undoubtedly be remembered for in history will be his decision to declare war on Iraq in 2003. If we recall back to early 2003 when the administration was laying out its reasons for invading Iraq, the one most marketed to the American public was the idea that Saddam Hussein was in the process of creating chemical or nuclear weapons, which he would then give to terrorists who could then use them to attack American cities. Of course, soon after the war began it was discovered that these weapons either never existed or no longer existed, and to this day no one in the CIA or federal government has been able to explain how the intelligence community could have gotten it so wrong.

"Fair Game" places itself right in the middle of these controversial events between 2002 and 2004, and is told through the eyes of CIA Agent Valerie Plame (played very convincingly by Naomi Watts) and her husband, United Nations Ambassador Joe Wilson (played fiercely by the always great Sean Penn). The film's story follows how Plame goes from patriotic CIA agent diligently doing her job overseas to suddenly having her identity made public after her husband uncovered false information about a nuclear development sale between Iraq and Niger. This false information about a uranium sale between these two countries is important because it was implied as factual when Bush was listing information about Iraq during his State of The Union Speech in early 2003.

As the film starts, Plame and Wilson appear to be a very loving couple with a very strong marriage - they even have 2 small children who live with them in the D.C. area. Plame is busy traveling covertly to countries in The Middle East to shake her fist at people whom might have ties to terrorists, while Wilson is back at home, often finding himself in heated arguments with friends at the dinner table whom hold a different opinions from his own. Both Plame and Wilson appear to be relatively non-political civilians working peacefully and dutifully for the federal government - until the Bush administration decides that the country should invade Iraq. After Wilson criticizes the administration's faulty information publicly, Plame is then fired from her job, and much of the rest of the film focuses on how the couple's marriage is stressed because of what is transpiring all over the media. People harass them often when they go out, as Wilson makes rounds on the media circuit to try to restore his name. The film has a little bit of a soap-operish feel to it during the 2nd half in that it is mostly focused on the couple's relationship, but the acting performances by Watts and Penn are just so sharp that they make up for some of the film's small flaws when it comes to storytelling. There is also a small subplot involving a family in Iraq connected with Plame's counter-proliferation efforts that should have been either developed more or left out entirely, as that is the weakest part of the film - but fortunately those scenes are relatively few in the entire film.

Aside from the acting, another of the film's strengths is how it never gets too preachy towards the Bush administration, but rather focuses on the facts of what unfairly happened to Plame and Wilson from their own points of view. In fact, no actor plays Bush or Cheney in the film - we only see a few clips of the real Bush and Cheneys giving speeches on TV screens for a matter of seconds. Scooter Libby (portrayed a bit villainously by David Andrews) is seen in a few short scenes as a swindler who tries to convince CIA employees into manipulating the intelligence the way he sees it, but his characterization is very subtle, rather than as an in your face bad guy. Doug Liman's direction is also fairly fast-paced to make sure the film never gets too bogged down in pointless scenes. Even though it is very talky and dialogue-driven, the narrative keeps moving forward at a crisp pace - at least if audience members are adults without ADD (and I think it's pretty fair to say that this movie isn't marketed for the Transformers or Twilight crowd...) The film generally works very well both as an entertaining drama, spy thriller, and an educational lesson. Moreover, it's an intelligent reminder to the public of how people in positions in power in government will often stop at nothing to achieve their desired goals, even if that means illegally abusing their power through misinformation, manipulation, and character assassination. As citizens we should constantly be questioning our leaders and their motives, as well as keeping them honest and holding them accountable whenever they they violate our trust.

On a final note, I have to say that I find it very refreshing to see a film like this that has a woman in a very intelligent leading role, rather than how Hollywood films usually stereotype females in formulaic romantic comedies. It seems like women in major roles usually have their sappy characters obsessing about trying to find a man and buying shoes, with some slapstick and comedy at the dinner table with their parents thrown in as well (a.k.a. chick flicks). It's either that or the female characters get almost zero screen time, where they are relegated to simply being the cute girlfriend sidekick. It's nice to see movies like this allow womens' dramatic acting talents to shine and allow us to see them as complex, real characters.

Hereafter (2010)

"Hereafter" is a tender, emotionally-charged, and thought-provoking exploration of death and humanity

[9/10 · 23 October 2010]

"Death. There. That's the topic for your next film, students. There's just one rule - none of the characters can be named Freddy Krueger, Michael Myers, the Jigsaw Killer, or Jason Voorhees. Also, you are not allowed to have any ghosts in the film. Your final product is due before the end of the semester. Best of luck!"

One could easily imagine the collective gasps from a group of filmmakers after being given this instruction. "Wait, you mean we can't just scare and disgust people with explicit gore, deafening sounds, and gratuitous nudity like we always do? Talk about a challenge."

In Clint Eastwood's tender and extremely intriguing "Hereafter", Eastwood and his writer Peter Morgan attempt to tackle some of the challenging human questions and issues surrounding death and the possibility of an afterlife. The film follows the individual stories of 3 different people living in different countries - a factory worker in San Francisco who has some degree of psychic ability to connect with the dead (Matt Damon), a French television journalist who survives a near-death experience(Cecile de France), and a London boy living with his drug-addicted mother whose twin brother has died in a tragic accident (Frankie McLaren). Bryce Dallas Howard also has a supporting role as a woman Damon's character meets and dates for a short period of time.

One of the great strengths of this film is how low key and quiet it is, as well as how slow-paced the storytelling is. While viewing it, you start to absorb yourself in the characters and their dilemmas and not focus on any kind of plot developments or gimmicks, as the story inches ever so forward at a snail's pace. In fact, if someone asked you to tell you what happens in the movie, you would have a very hard time explaining that to them, as the movie is entirely based on characters' dilemmas and grief, without following any kind of typical linear or formulaic plot. It is a film that values patience, character growth , and audience members with developed attention spans. It is also a film that is very grounded in reality and focused on characters generally acting in ways that make logical sense, rather than in ways the plot dictates how they act. It would have been very easy for an inferior director or writer to take this delicate topic and allow it to get too detached from reality and into the lands of heebie jeebies and Ouija boards. However, in the hands of Eastwood, this material always connects with you on a human level. This is essentially an art-house film that explores characters and life's challenges, with some very expensive special effects in the first 10 minutes of the film to tease you into thinking that it's a thriller. It is also important to note that it is neither pro-religion nor anti-religion. It is simply pro-human, and doesn't pretend like it knows what happens beyond the grave. Damon's character can only sense that a loved one is connecting with him, but he doesn't mention if that loved one is with Jesus, Allah, etc. - because the film isn't a thesis on religion. It's a character study of human grief in different parts of the world and how all people can relate to the difficulties and sadness surrounding this issue.

One of the interesting ideas I thought about while watching this film is how various individuals and groups in the world try to profit economically or politically in some way off of people because of these unknown questions surrounding the idea of death. There are a couple of extremely subtle and nuanced references to religion, most notably Christianity and Islam, and how they try to compete with each other to try to "sell themselves to you" to join their side on the path to salvation - as well as a couple of scenes involving very obvious "fake" psychics who are simply taking wild guesses in their readings, yet people are still lined up to pay them. We also see a couple of instances of authors trying to sell books to make money off of this topic, as well as Matt Damon's character's brother (played by Jay Mohr) repeatedly try to convince George (Damon) to get back into the business of psychic readings because of the potential cash flow involved. Of course, we can't forget how the movie industry also tries to profit off of the intrigue and wonder surrounding this topic, as is evident of my ticket stub to this movie, as well as the $30 popcorn…

The acting all around is very strong. Matt Damon gives a very solid performance in a very understated manner. His character, George, does not take pride in his abilities, and just wants to crawl back under the rock of normalcy in his community. He doesn't try to come across as smarter or more heroic than any other character in the film. He is extremely modest, and even somewhat shy. He looks down at the ground often and speaks very softly. Likewise, Cecile de France and Frankie McLaren also add a high degree of restraint to their performances as well. Supposedly Eastwood hired McLaren (and his twin brother) based on the fact that they both didn't have any acting experience, as he was worried that they would be trained in typical child acting, where many child actors often come across as over-acting. The talented veteran comedian Richard Kind also gives an extremely touching, dramatic performance in his lone couple of scenes near the beginning of the film.

The Social Network (2010)

A fascinating study of America's cultural fabrics of individualism, capitalism, and competition

[9/10 · 9 October 2010]

"The Internet isn't written in pencil, Mark. It's written in ink." warns Erica, Mark Zuckerberg's ex-girlfriend, after he tries to apologize to her for posting photos of her online without her consent in one of the film's early scenes. This clearly is one of the facts of our life and our future, whether we like it or not. The Internet, and more specifically social networking sites - with all their benefits to society, along with all of their pitfalls, aren't going anywhere.

Mark Zuckerberg is of course well known for being one of the co-creators of Facebook, and currently holds the title of the world's youngest billionaire at a mere 26 years old. In David Fincher's masterful "The Social Network," we follow the story of the juggernaut website's creation through the eyes of Zuckerberg, his friend Eduardo Saverin, two of their fellow classmates at Harvard, the founder of Napster Sean Parker (played brilliantly by Justin Timberlake-in a performance worthy of a Best Supporting Actor nomination), and a whole lot of lawyers sitting between all of them. On the surface, this topic would seem to make for a fairly boring film, as movies about lawyers and their clients arguing about settlements and copyright issues rarely would be considered intriguing or exciting to watch. However, in the hands of Aaron Sorkin's fast-paced script and David Fincher's crisp and well-edited direction, the movie is so enticing and fast-paced that it feels almost like an action movie - even though the movie is 2 hours of dialogue without any action whatsoever. Scenes of dialogue between characters often only last 20 or 30 seconds before quickly moving onto another scene. I am not sure if I have ever seen a movie with as much dialogue and exposition as this move at such an exciting pace.

Without going into too many details about the plot, much of the story is focused on the large egos of each of the creators and how they each crave individual recognition, power, and prestige for the site's sudden growth and success. After the website begins to show promise and becomes highly profitable, the creators then file lawsuits against each other and each claim ownership of the idea. The first 2/3 of the film are set on Harvard's campus, where the characters give us a wealth of insight (no pun intended) into America's cultural definition of success, as measured by wealth and individual success, even at the expense of others. I found the topic to be a fascinating look into the ongoing struggle societies and cultures have between trying to balance individualism and pluralism. Cultures in the West, most specifically America, are of course mostly individual-based, focused mostly on capitalism and economic power, even at the expense of others, including family and community relationships - whereas more cultures in the East are focused primarily on families, communities, and pluralism, and those people care less about wealth, prestige, and individualism. One feels that the characters in this movie are all good, well-meaning people, but they feel an uncontrollable urge - an almost addiction, to look out for themselves and their own prestige first to create a zero-sum game of success, even though one can sense of level of loneliness some of them feel, most specifically Zuckenberg's lack of friends or a social life.

"The Social Network" explores the complex relationship between these values, and does so in an intelligent way that never preaches or talks down to its audience. The film simply tells the story of these characters in a very restrained and straightforward manner, and allows the audience to form its own opinions of the story on the screen. Capitalism and competition in America are never directly criticized, nor should they be, as without them we wouldn't be the economic or military superpower that we are today. However, even with our financial and individual successes, one can't overlook the downsides that also come from living in a culture that values those over pluralist and community-based ideals. Given the fact that Facebook and other social networking sites will certainly be around to stay, what does this mean for America's future? Will America always continue to be a "me" society where individualism and competition are valued over pluralism? And will social networking sites just promote those values only more so in the future? Is it possible for technology to change our values, or does technology only serve to reinforce our values? Now those are the 6.9 billion dollar questions.

The Town (2010)

"The Town" sizzles with suspense and superb performances

[8/10 · 17 September 2010]

You may now officially forget about Armaggedon, Pearl Harbor, Gigli, and Daredevil. The Ben Affleck we first came to know 12 years ago when he wrote his Oscar-winning script for "Good Will Hunting" is now back in business.

Affleck's second effort in the director's chair, following his superb "Gone Baby Gone" back in 2007, once again lands him back in the mean streets of working class Boston. Based on the award-winning novel "Prince of Thieves" by Chuck Hogan, the story outline in "The Town" is mostly nothing new, as the majority of it is a routine police procedural involving FBI agents on the hunt for a group of talented bank robbers led by Affleck and Jeremy Renner. The plot itself doesn't have many surprises, for we in the audience know that the robbers will always get away until the climactic stand-off with the police towards the end. Affleck knows he isn't creating anything original here with the plot, but he successfully takes the genre of the inner-city crime thriller and executes it with great precision - with superb acting performances, a sprinkling of tender romance, and a heart-pounding level of suspense throughout. Oh yeah, and did I mention that those nun costumes they wear when committing the robberies are really badass?

The performances themselves are the heart of the film, as Affleck has cast actors in roles that make them completely believable and allow the audience to care about them. Blake Lively is outstanding in her very small role as a drugged out stripper, even though she has no more than 10 minutes of screen time. She is completely unrecognizable from her well-known role on "Gossip Girl." Jeremy Renner is terrifying as Affleck's co-leader of the gang. One can sense through his character just how much this life of crime in part of his blood, even if he tries to hide his true emotions by hiding behind violence and intimidation. The talented veteran Chris Cooper is also spectacular as Affleck's father in prison. His one, 3-minute long scene with Affleck behind glass could be a training manual for young actors wondering how it's done. Everyone else in the film, including Affleck, is strong and does the best they can at making their characters appear authentic.

Affleck appears to also have a great understanding of suspense, pacing, and editing, as I was completely immersed in every moment of the film - from the gripping opening minute until the ending credits. The film rarely feels like a typical slam-bam action movie (until the last 20 minutes when the film goes a bit over the top with a larger than necessary climax), but rather as a character-driven drama that exposes the culture of the people in this neighborhood who live in this cycle of generational crime. It's just a part of who these people are and what they know. Some of them desire to get out of it, but then they feel like they are "too good" for their friends by leaving them behind, as is true with the struggle of leaving any type of criminal gang. Affleck does a solid job in the script department by allowing the fast-paced dialogue amongst these characters to feel natural. He even throws in an occasional witty and hysterical line to break the film's serious tension. One that I especially liked was a satirical reference to crime shows like CSI and Bones. Some of the dialogue is difficult to hear given the strong Boston accents, but you can make most of it out.

The action / bank robberies are exceptionally directed and worth the price of admission themselves, as one would expect in a film focused on umm, drum roll please…..bank robbers. However, they are intelligently spaced apart throughout the film's 2 hour run time to never make them too mundane. There are only 3 total robberies / heists in the film, with a great deal of character development in between. There is actually an enormous amount of tension and build-up between the 1st and 2nd heists in the film, which allows the 2nd heist to have that much more of an effect on the audience when it does occur. The only flaw in the direction of these scenes, is when the film goes for an overblown climax in the last 20 minutes. I suppose he was trying to please the action-friendly crowd, or the studio required him to add in more action. I'm not sure. He just adds in too much gunfire and SWAT teams to make it appear more Hollywood-esquire and unrealistic, and that takes away a bit of the reality and honesty from the first 75% of the film. However, that flaw aside, 90% of what is in this film is superior to most of anything shown in theaters so far this year, with the exception of Chris Nolan's masterful "Inception." It is well worth your time, and it demonstrates Affleck's true talent both as a scribe and director. Now I think it's time for all of us to tell Michael Bay how much he sucks.

The Kids Are All Right (2010)

A very well-acted adult dramedy that is filled to the brim with humanity and great characters

[9/10 · 25 July 2010]

I must say that it is very refreshing to see such a well-acted film focused on great characters in a year when most films in theaters are utter garbage. This little art film, with its very small budget and wonderful direction by Lisa Cholodenko, is completely focused on an ensemble of 5 different characters and their relationships with one another.

The 3 leads, Moore, Bening, and Ruffalo are all terrific at making each of their characters look extremely likable, tender, yet also quite flawed - in other words, human. Each of these 3 leads is presented as a morally complex person - some things they do show their caring and nurturing sides, and other things they do show how they can easily hurt someone else by their actions. Ruffalo is amazing at portraying just an average, macho guy being thrown into this situation, and his subtle nuances of his performance make him look like he isn't even acting. I see him as a lock for a Best Supporting Actor nomination at the Oscars. Moore and Bening are also outstanding at portraying their complex characters; either or both of them could very well also earn acting nominations. Every character in the film just looks so normal and human instead of painted as a caricature, which is quite refreshing to see. In fact, because of the fact that these 3 people look so average and normal, it takes away most of the focus that the two women are even lesbians. You seem to just forget about that about 10 minutes into the film and simply focus on them as complex people, which is one of the film's greatest strengths.

The other 2 characters, the two teenage children of the lesbian couple, are seen as very well-rounded and bright, each with a strong moral compass. They are often quite embarrassed by their moms' arguments and conversations, and also have issues with friends in their social lives - again, just like any kids would have. Unfortunately, a certain segment of the population thinks that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are somehow "freaks" or "messed up" which is completely ludicrous to begin with, but this film just points that out. Interestingly, they kids are actually the most morally righteous people in the film, which I suppose is how the film got its title. There are a few other minor characters in the film, but they are such tiny roles that don't have an effect on the audience.

The whole lesbian marriage and adoption issue is never preached to the audience, which I believe makes the film stronger. Some gay marriage advocates may be very upset that the the lesbian couple in this film are depicted as very flawed instead of a "perfect" couple because they fear it hurts their cause for equal rights. I completely disagree with them and think that the way the characters are presented in this film actually helps advocates for gay marriage and gay adoption. Of course that is up for debate for each viewer, but I think the more human and average you paint the characters, the more people will like and relate to them.

The only minor flaw I have with the film, which is why I am giving it a 9, is the very simple story it tells about these characters. The film is extremely well-acted and the 5 characters get developed as 3-dimensional people (which is extremely rare and great to see in a film), but it has a rather simple story that fills up its 1 hour and 40 minutes. I just happen to like movies that have clever plots and stories that keep my mind engaged on what might happen next; some might not find this as a big deal. It's just a completely character-driven film with tons of dialogue and long conversations at dinner tables, in bedrooms, in yards, etc. Again, I think the film is very strong and well worth your time overall. It just may not appeal to you if you are expecting a great story.

Inception (2010)

A thrilling cinematic Soduku puzzle for the eyes, brain, and imagination

[10/10 · 16 July 2010]

Well, it's summer movie season my friends, so that means it's time for lots of stupid movies aimed at young kids and teens who are off of school for summer break. Yep, lots of pointless, predictable stories involving lots of unnecessary CGI, animated people, fart jokes, and vampires. However, once in a while we get a great indie filmmaker like Christopher Nolan who doesn't care about trying to make a movie "popular" but rather focuses on trying to take his audience on an adventure where we experience thrills we aren't used to experiencing at the movies. Like his other films, Inception relies on stellar performances from its cast, as well as storytelling twists that constantly keep us guessing. However, I think this film surpasses his other films in that in addition to clever storytelling he adds some incredibly imaginative visuals and choreographed action sequences that blow your mind as well as almost knock you out of your seat.

One of the challenges of reviewing a science-fiction film like this is that it plays around with time and space. So therefore, it doesn't play by the usual rules of plot and story, since the world it exists in is the subconscious. Therefore, as an audience member you are going to be somewhat frustrated trying to figure out what this movie is "about." At the theater I was at today, a few women near me walked out about an hour and a half into the film and never returned, probably because they simply refused to allow the film to take them on this journey into the unknown. I am certain that many, many moviegoers will hate this movie for that reason, since it doesn't have a cut and paste formulaic narrative that they are used to seeing in films. This is basically a low budget art film at its core and soul, with 150 million dollars of production design and special effects sprinkled on top and around the edges. If you go in expecting a simple Hollywood Shoot Em Up script with good guys and bad guys you will be sorely disappointed. This is basically "The Matrix" meets "What Dreams May Come" meets "Ocean's Eleven" on steroids.

It would be hard for anyone to spoil the film for you, since if you have heard of it you already know that it is about a group of thieves who have the ability to steal someone's dreams, and the complex consequences that could result by trying to do this. After watching the film, that's pretty much all you understand by the end of it anyways, so you just have to watch the film to experience it for yourself. You will either love it or hate it, depending on what level of creativity and imagination you like to see in films. I say to just allow yourself to appreciate this artistic vision and be taken into this world by the exceptional acting, outstanding storytelling, exciting action, and imaginative visuals. The visuals are actually enough to give this film a fairly high rating on their own. One that especially amazed me was a fight involving Joseph-Gordon Levitt inside a zero-gravity hallway. It's just amazing because it doesn't look like any special effects were used whatsoever. It simply looks like the real actors are floating and fighting in this hallway and climbing up and down walls! I am certain wires were used in some clever way; I just have no idea how. There is also a scene where a locomotive steamrolls down a city street crashing into cars (without any tracks under it), and just like in The Dark Knight truck chase where Nolan actually flipped the Joker's truck for real, you can tell that this stunt was also filmed for real.

Last but not least, it is important to note that lost in all this is the fact that DiCaprio gives an incredible performance in this film. Yes, his name is on the top of the movie poster but he is not the star of this. The star of this film is Nolan and his vision, and DiCaprio does a great job of restraining himself from over-doing it so that Nolan can succeed in creating his vision. It would not surprise me to see him get a Best Actor nomination. I also foresee Marion Cotillard getting a Best Supporting Actress nomination. I was mesmerized and spellbound every time she showed up on screen, even though she has a fairly small role overall. She's essentially playing a ghost, but the most beautiful, sexiest, tormented, and scariest ghost a female could ever play. Nolan will also definitely get a Best Director and Best Picture nomination at the Oscars, you can bet on those.

CAUTION: Side effects that may result from watching this film may include brain hemorrhages as well as necessary check ups at the psychiatric ward at your local hospital. = )

Toy Story 3 (2010)

A funny and zany children's screwball comedy...but not one of Pixar's best

[7/10 · 21 June 2010]

First things first, this is a film obviously aimed at children ages 3-10, so I am not exactly the target audience for this. That being said, if I was a kid in that age range I would have a blast at this movie, as it is great fun for the very young, undeveloped mind. However, as an adult reviewer I give this film a mixed review overall, for it does some things well, yet fails in other aspects.

Overall, the film is quite a bit of fun, with plenty of gags and silly comedic moments. If escapism and comedy is all you are looking for in a summer film, then this film will serve you just fine. It is an entertaining summer film, so I would recommend it on that level alone. However, let's look at some of this flaws, which certainly don't make it deserving of a 9 or 10.

Flaw 1 - lack of heart or character growth. Unlike Pixar's 3 masterpieces, UP, Wall-E and Nemo, this film just lacks any kind of emotion, wonder, or heart. It feels more like an Ice Age film that is simply focused on comedy and action, but feels very hollow emotionally. It feels like the team at Pixar was just going through the motions of churning out another cutesy film, without trying very hard to make it a good one. It is true that the last 5 minutes have some heart, but the 85 minutes before that don't have much at all. Certainly far less than what we would expect in a Pixar film.

Flaw 2 - the 2nd half of the film really drags. After about 30-35 minutes into the film, the script suddenly becomes cliché-ridden as the toys get captured and have to be rescued/escape back home. Literally nothing interesting or mentally engaging happens in the 2nd half, other than the toys trying to escape, with a few gags thrown in. This becomes tedious after a while, so the film feels about 15 minutes longer than necessary.

Pros - Top notch animation, some funny gags, Latso the Bear character, and a great opening scene Cons - Story is too simple and drags during the 2nd half, too many Ken/ Barbie scenes becomes repetitive.

Up in the Air (I) (2009)

I'm sorry kids, but Avatar, New Moon, and Alvin and the Chipmunks are in the OTHER theaters....

[10/10 · 2 January 2010]

It's hard to exactly put into words just how great this film is. After observing Jason Reitman's rise to fame with such very good films as Thank you For Smoking and Juno, this film clearly cements him as one of the top directors working for intelligent adult audiences today.

What Reitman actually accomplishes in this film through his screen writing, directing, and editing pretty much puts 95% of the other directors in Hollywood to shame. Unlike most Hollywood films that are made for marketing purposes to cater to a wide demographic in order to make cash, it's clear that this film isn't trying to please anyone or any studio executive. It never talks down to its audience by telling them how they should feel or what they should think, and never gives the audience any hint as to where the story is headed. I saw this film with my dad the other day, and he said that he was disappointed by the second half of the movie because it didn't have a message or any kind of clear resolution. I replied back to him...well that's what elevates this film beyond 95% of the mindless drivel out there in Hollywood these days! It's called originality. It's called allowing your audience to ponder what the movie was about, who the characters really were as people, rather than just going through the motions of a recycled, cliché-ridden plot (Avatar, anyone?). I also overheard a few women leaving the theater who thought it was OK, but were kind of disappointed that Clooney never got to fall in love and marry one of the women at the end! Oh no! God forbid Hollywood screenwriters and directors avoid romantic comedy clichés and actually tell us a realistic story about human nature and human behavior! (sarcasm)

It's unfortunate that IMDb limits the number of words that I can use in this review, because I would like to write 10 pages explaining the greatness of this film. Where to start? 1) the movie is completely character driven, with all of the characters developed as 3-dimensional, likable, yet flawed people who are seen as very human and easy to relate to. Even Vera Farmiga's character, who we find out near the end is somewhat devilish, is seen as a human and likable person who doesn't know she is hurting someone else. The film doesn't care one bit about some kind of plot or climax, much like recent films "Sideways" and "A Serious Man." The characters just go about their daily business and we focus on who they are as people. 2) the humor and dialogue are outstanding because they focus on verbal wit and intelligent flirting/jousting rather than on stupid physical/slapstick gags. The "R" rating also allows the film to take risks with its dialogue because it can dare to go places "PG-13" films can't go. Most of this dialogue moves at a blistering pace, so you really have to pay attention to keep up. However, what really elevates this humor above that of other films is that it is so witty and based on normal human behavior! The 3 main characters all get a chance to shine comedically, but all of their comedy is based on realistic human behavior and genuine conversations people might have. 3) the film doesn't talk down to us an audience or preach to us about its message, but rather explores big ideas about work obsession, evolving technology, interpersonal connections, human desires, moral vs. immoral behavior, and lets us ponder them ourselves. The film especially focuses on these issues in its 2nd half, when the film suddenly stops being a laugh-a-thon and instead decides to become more dramatic and emotional. Some viewers may not like how the tone suddenly changes in its 2nd half, but I see it as a masterful move. 4) It's rare to see a romance between a couple that is older than the typical Hollywood romantic couple. Clooney - 40s and Farmiga - late 30s, and they are busy flirting and having as much fun as kids in a candy store! If there is one thing romantic movies these days usually tend to discriminate against, it's age. 5) Jason Reitman is working with very delicate material here, and the scenes with people being told they are fired are pretty emotional. Given today's economy, these parts may be a little too much for some viewers. Clooney's loneliness and search for a relationship are also pretty sad, but Reitman balances these emotions with the humor and wit wonderfully to not make the film either too humorous or too somber.

The audience in the theater I saw this in was packed and about 2/3 female (I am a male), who were probably mostly there to see a romantic comedy starring Mr. super hunk Clooney. Yes, this film does have plenty of great comedy and plenty of romance. However, it is far different from your typical Hollywood romantic comedy that focuses on clichés and one-dimensional characters. It is much more of a thought-provoking, Sociology-oriented film about people's individual needs, characteristics, and motivations, and is especially relevant with regards to our current culture and society. In fact, most of the content of this movie should be of great interest to men, since at its heart it's about Clooney's sense of masculinity and how he allows his nonstop work schedule to act as a crutch to avoid any kind of deep, meaningful relationship he might have with a person. This is much more of an artsy, independent film than a typical Hollywood blockbuster aimed at making cash. With the 200 or so mainstream films released in America every year, only 3 or 4 of them are ever on this level of greatness. Adult audiences with intelligent brains who hate being preached to at movies should see this puppy 2 or 3 times to improve its box office profits. I know I am going to.

Avatar (2009)

A visually spectacular cartoon aimed at kids and fantasy geeks....unfortunately nothing more

[5/10 · 18 December 2009]

Watching this movie is kind of like looking at numerous beautiful paintings. You go "ooohh and ahhhh" at first when you see them, then after a while you get tired of it. This movie is 2 hours and 40 minutes of looking at beautiful paintings, with no emotional attachment to the characters or their conflicts. It just goes on and on forever without any kind of drama, comedy, plot developments, or suspense. This script was written for children approximately 5 to 15 years old. In other words, people who have yet to see a lot of movies in their lives to compare this with. The biggest problem with this is just how much the film talks down to us as an audience, lecturing and preaching to us with regards to things like saving trees and the evils of war-monger Americans. It's OK to bring up some kind of political or environmental issue in a film, but you had better be sure to do it in an intelligent way that allows the audience to think about the issue, rather than just preach to us like we are 6 year olds.

I'm all for good-looking visual effects here and there, but this film was simply too much focus on fantasy and CGI. I personally can't relate to these characters or their world. I'm sorry, but when 10 feet tall blue CGI-animated people are talking to each other and flying through the air on dragons for 2 hours, it feels like you are watching a cartoon! I would have loved them when I was 7, or 9, or even 13, but not as a grown adult. I cannot relate to these creatures, which means I CANNOT CARE ABOUT THEM. I could care about Jack and Rose in Titanic because of the how real they were, and how real the plot and atmosphere was. This movie was complete fantasy, with a plot that was nearly identical to Pocahontas, The Last Samurai, and Dances with Wolves.

The final problem I had with this movie was that the acting from all the principal characters was very flat. The Army Colonel could have been played by anyone, as he was basically just a typical tough guy. He's just your typical villain from 1,000 other action movies, nothing more. Giovanni Ribisi is the best actor in this movie. He seemed to be having some fun in his role as the sleazy corporate executive, and whenever his character was on screen I wanted the scene to continue. However, after the first 45 minutes or so he basically disappears so we can focus on on the blue natives and their visual effects. The talented veteran Sigourney Weaver also gives her all in her small role, but Cameron just doesn't care about her either. He just wants to move the film's pace along so we can keep the kids with the short attention spans focused on the bright colors and dragons! Also, Michelle Rodriguez is treated like nothing more than a pretty face who knows how to wear a push-up bra and fill out a tight white top. I guess Megan Fox wasn't available for this one! Sam Worthington is very dull as Jake, but it's not his fault. Cameron just doesn't let us see Jake as an interesting character. He's just a typical cardboard cutout young action movie star who is physically fit and handsome.

I believe this so-called "revolutinary 3-D film" by James Cameron is really just a ploy by studios to get audiences to start coming to see more films in 3-D just so they can charge you an extra $4 per ticket. We've been seeing more and more films being shown in 3-D over the past year or two, but I sure hope this is simply a fad. I have seen a few films in 3-D so far, and I have to say that the 3-D does not make a film any better. In fact, it may actually make it worse because the depth perception of the visuals distracts you from the acting and the story. Then again, with films like Avatar that may be the point! I will admit that it is fun to see the 3-D effects in the first 15 minutes or so of a film...but then you want to get involved with the story and characters and not be distracted by all these random objects floating in the middle of the screen! I would much rather see an intelligent story by Christopher Nolan (Memento, Prestige, Dark Knight) than another one of these CGI-heavy stinkers aimed at dumb audiences. Then again, some of the biggest box office hits of this year are Avatar, Transformers 2, 2012, Terminator Salvation, etc. Therefore, as long as young and dumb audiences keep shelling out the cash for these, don't expect anything to change...

Invictus (2009)

Less is more! Amazing, restrained directing by Eastwood!

[9/10 · 13 December 2009]

This film was simply so well directed by Eastwood. He has already won the Best Director Award from the National Board of Review, and he certainly will be one of the favorites for it at the Oscars, along with James Cameron and Jason Reitman.

Where do I start? This film is so unlike most other sports films out there for a lot of reasons, mostly because Eastwood doesn't try to manipulate your emotions with phony "tearjerker" scenes or scenes with some kind of phony conflicts/crises between characters. In many ways the film is kind of boring in that it is relatively quiet and free of any kind of loud sounds, drama, or music. When the musical score does appear, it appears sporadically and is rather quiet and serene. It is very much directed like a low budget documentary, where Eastwood is only interested in telling how, when, and where this story took place, along with who was affected. He doesn't do what an inferior director would do, which is add in more dramatic scenes involving Mandela's or Pennier's family life to try to add more romance to the film, or try to make the Rugby World Cup tournament into some kind of amazing event that resolved all of South Africa's problems. Also, when the game is over at the end, we simply see Freeman and Damon shake hands and say thank you to each other for about 15 seconds, then they walk away from each other. No one is carried off the field, and the South Africa team is never really portrayed as an underdog. None of the players on the other team taunt them or even speak to them, and we never see much of a montage of the playoffs leading up to the big game. Also, no player or coach dies right before the big game (typical phony conflict to try to manipulate your emotions). There's way less of any of these things than other directors would do. There are no close-ups of their faces with tears running down their cheeks, or any real dramatic dialogue. Eastwood isn't trying to make them both superheroes, as a lesser director would do. He's just trying to show that is one event helped bring the people of South Africa together for at least a short time, and that's all.

Eastwood simply goes by the old "less is more" strategy in ever way he directs this film. Like I stated earlier, the film is close to being boring because of the lack of any loud sounds or surprise dramatic developments. My favorite part of the whole film, and this is somewhat of a spoiler, was the entire championship game at the end, which seemed to last at least 20 minutes or so. During this 20 minute climax, the film suddenly turns into basically a silent film without any dialogue, with Eastwood just going back and forth between the action on the field and people watching on TV from their homes all over South Africa. This dialogue free time, with some beautiful music in the background was simply amazing art, and took away any of the typical sports "cliches" that other directors would have used during this time. Damon gives a "let's go" type of pep talk to the team near the end of the game, but that pep talk was only about 15 seconds, whereas other directors would have made that scene probably a minute or two, with tears dripping down players cheeks, to try to manipulate your emotions.

The performances by Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon are excellent, with a certain Oscar nomination for Morgan Freeman specifically. The cinematography was well done, as the film was filmed entirely on location. However, the star of this baby is really Eastwood, as his style is so free of manipulation or gimmicks. He truly respects the audience's intelligence by not shoving material or dramatic events down our throat. Instead, he backs off and lets us ingest the scenes, interpret them, and allow them to mean whatever we as the audience want them to mean. This is film directing at its finest.

A Christmas Carol (2009)

Not a typical cheery, fast-paced kids film....much darker and in the spirit of Dicken's work

[8/10 · 7 November 2009]

One thing I would like to point out for those who are thinking of seeing this is that the "Disney" at the beginning of the title is really false advertising. This film felt NOTHING like a typical Disney family movie....and that's actually a good thing from my point of view. The film is incredibly dark, has only one big action sequence (which doesn't take place until 1 hour into the film), and lurches along at a pretty slow pace. The film also has almost no music in the background, except for the very beginning and very end scenes. It is at times like a vintage silent film from the 1920s...with individual scenes that go on for far longer than kids' movies (or more specifically Disney) allows because of viewers' short attention spans.

To be more specific, this film is nothing like typical kids movies. I did not laugh one time throughout the film. Animated kids movies usually are action comedies with both numerous comedic moments and chase scenes/action to keep the young ones entertained. I will say this one more time: kids and teenagers who are expecting a laugh-a-minute Jim Carrey action film will be solely disappointed and bored. Some of the kids sitting near me got up to walk around a couple of times because they were clearly bored. Whereas myself, a 27 year with a developed attention span was actually appreciating the slow nature of the film.

To some of you reading this, this will make you want to avoid the film and that's OK. Everyone has their preferences for films to be a certain way. Personally, I felt that Zemeckis had a lot of balls to make the film this way....with extremely slow scenes without music to emphasize the loneliness and hopelessness Scrooge feels with his existence. Zemeckis also uses the widescreen format extremely well to show all of the empty space that is always surrounding Scrooge throughout the film, especially in his home and office. There are very few close-ups of him at all. Some may not see this is as a big deal, and much prefer action scenes and comedy...but I disagree...this is about the artistic details of telling the story. Zemeckis' job is use images that tell the story in the way it should be told.

Lastly, one of the other criticisms of the film might be the fact that Zemeckis chooses to use much of the original dialogue Dickens wrote. This dialogue is sometimes difficult to hear, especially since people are speaking in a more formal way with English accents. I myself couldn't make it out sometimes, but that's because I'm not used to hearing it. However, I would again go back to Zemeckis trying to be faithful to the spirit of Scrooge and who Dickens wanted him to be...not what Hollywood or Disney wants him to be. In fact, I'll bet that if Zemeckis had his way he would have dropped that 5 minute long chase scene where Scrooge goes for some physical comedy. I would bet that Disney forced him to add a lengthy action scene like that in order to get their backing for the film. When you see the film for yourself you will see how that scene really does not fit with the mood or tone of the other scenes in the film.

Note - I chose to see this film in 2-D in order to focus more on the story and characters than be distracted by things coming out of the screen towards me, so I can't say what 3-D is like. However, I can't see the film being all that different.

A Serious Man (2009)

A serious look at human nature!

[9/10 · 17 October 2009]

I just saw this film earlier today and I have to say that it was simply thrilling. Now how can I possible say that it was thrilling when there were zero action scenes, zero suspense, and zero plot? To me, it's exactly because it lacks those things that makes this film thrilling! If you are reading through these IMDb reviews, you already know the general premise of the movie and have likely seen the preview, and so knowing that it is a Coen brothers movie you probably know what kind of film to expect.

One of the things I really love about this film (which others may hate) is because it basically has no plot, and is simply 90 minutes of one middle-aged man's struggles in life, with no type of resolution whatsoever. The tone and slow pacing of the film reminded me a great deal of the film "Sideways(2004)" in that we just see an average guy's struggles with the people in his life, with some comedic moments thrown in occasionally to break the overall depressing mood of the film. Like that film, you are so able to relate to the main character and his problems because his issues and the people he has issues with are so genuine.

And that's exactly why I call this review "a serious look at human nature." All of the great satire is in fact based closely on reality, or realistic events that we can relate to. In this film, the main character's issues are so average and normal (divorce, teenage son experimenting with pot, possible job advancement/work stability, etc.) that they are parts of almost everyone's everyday life. Even the interactions and subplots with the Asian student and the hunting neighbors are so very realistic, which aids in making them hilarious. Even if you are not Jewish, you will still be able to relate to and understand the satire in this film. Some moviegoers with short attention spans will probably hate this film and wonder when the big, explosive fight scene will be or when the Adam Sandler/Will Ferrell stupid fart/gay jokes will start appearing...but of course this film is the exact opposite of typical Hollywood.

Another reason why I am giving this film such a high score is because while watching this film it is clear just how much the Coen brothers simply LOVE making films, and they are only concerned with making the film their way. They don't care about box office profits or a target demographic...they just make films that are personal to them. It's just so refreshing to see. Just look at the attention to detail they will put into one scene of dialogue between characters. Look at the way the glasses' on someone's face are angled, the way the characters' hair is just a tiny bit messy, the way a character holds his yamaka in place while running, the way the lines are set-up and timed perfectly to have the perfect effect on the audience. When you watch this you can just see how dedicated they are to their craft. These guys care so much about creating little details and endearing characters and so little about any kind of recycled plot. Hats off to the Coen boys once again! Shalom!

Coraline (2009)

Brilliant...the best animated movie in years

[9/10 · 3 October 2009]

First, let me point out that this film could easily have been rated PG-13. In fact, the 2nd half of this film is more frightening than most of the other PG-13 movies out there, even though it is animated. That being said, this movie is probably too scary for anyone under about 9 years old. I also believe its story is too complex for anyone under about 9 years old. Parents will have to make their own decisions regarding this, but just don't be surprised if your child is a little confused by the story or a little bored by the lack of action scenes. This is basically a character study film aimed at a more intelligent audience with somewhat developed attention spans.

One of the first things I noticed while watching this movie in the theaters (and I also have seen it about 4 times on DVD already) is how very little "action" is in the film, especially for an animated film. At 1 hour and 40 minutes long, it is about 10-20 minutes longer than most every other children's movie these days. Its focus is not on fun or adventure, but rather on telling a character study based on Coraline's lonely and insecure life. This will bore many kids who go to the movies expecting the loud, colorful, chase scenes that animated movies usually have to keep the attention of their target audience. No, instead of going for action Coraline is brilliant by taking its sweet little time to build up atmosphere and intensity. One of the ways Selick does this is by filming 95% of the film either inside Coraline's house or just outside the house, somewhere in the yard. As you watch the film, this claustrophobic feeling starts to build, as you realize that you are stuck in this house and in this yard, just like Coraline. This really creates the intensity and emotion, along with the fear that comes in the 2nd half of the film. The beautiful musical score contributes to this claustrophobic feel as well.

Unlike some animated movies that feel like they have about an hour's worth of script material, then spend the next 15 minutes on some climactic action scene (again, this has to do with a studio dumbing down the plot to please the attention spans of the kids), this movie has A LOT of story to tell during its running time. And it's a good story. A compelling, engaging, and complete story. And it is told so smoothly by Director Henry Selick. It does not at all surprise me that this book won the Newberry Award some years ago.

I'm just very pleased to see that studios have the guts to tell engaging, high-quality stories like this. Along with Wall-E, this is a positive sign that not everyone in Hollywood refuses to stifle creativity. Yes, it is scary at times, and yes parts of it are reminiscent of parts of the Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland, Pan's Labyrinth, etc...but this film is still so original when compared to the crap Hollywood makes these days. This film is truly a work of art, and I hope Henry Selick starts getting more work!

Public Enemies (2009)

Underdeveloped and slow...feels like a Terrence Malick film

[4/10 · 3 October 2009]

I must say that I am quite surprised that this film has an average score of 7.5 out of 10. Apparently today's movie going audience has fairly low standards on what they expect to see in a film with this kind of star power and budget. Given the acting talent and directing talent behind this film, one would think that they could have spent more money on a coherent script with a focused beginning, middle, and end. Let us not forget that the most important part of any film is the quality of its story (i.e. the script). Yes, having great actors, directors, and special effects can help, but without a good story they simply won't be able to do much.

My main problem with this film is simply that it does not have a coherent story for the audience to follow. It is supposedly based on the true story of Dillinger's life, yet normally in these types of biopics/docudramas there are dates at the bottom of the screen every 10 minutes or so to not only let the audience know that the event truly happened, but also give us a timeline of the events so we can feel things progressing towards a 3rd act. In many ways this film is lacking a 1st act; it simply starts with Dillinger escaping from a prison and then we see him robbing banks for most of the film. This film would have benefited immensely from having the first 15 minutes or so focus on his youth and early years, allowing us to see why he chose this line of profession and therefore allowing us to sympathize with him. Instead, we never really sympathize/care about either Dillinger or Purvis (Bale's boring, one-dimensional nemesis) because we know nothing about them.

This film also never really feels like it is going anywhere in its 2nd or 3rd acts. There is no rising action or any suspense leading up to any kind of 3rd act showdown. Compare this with the way the story in American Gangster is told, a much better cops and gangsters film. We see the private lives and motivations of both Crowe and Washington in the beginning, then as the film goes on we can see how they are eventually going to meet up late in the film, and when they finally do the last 20 minutes or so of the movie is simply exhilarating. The middle section of this film just has no plot. Dillinger's girlfriend disappears from the film for about an hour, then ends up playing a large role at the end? WTF? I started noticing just how incoherent the story was during the 10 minute long shootout scene at that cabin up in Wisconsin. While I watched the film I started to notice just how long that action scene was going on for, and it sure appeared that Mann was just trying to shower us with gunfire so we might forget that the movie had no story. It worked for about 10 minutes, as that scene is quite entertaining, but the other 2 hours of the film simply don't add up.

I know that Michael Mann is a talented filmmaker, and I know that he is too smart to make a boring movie intentionally. That being said, this movie's slow pace and lack of story made it feel like a Terrence Malick film...the New World comes to mind! Lots of cool, crisp visuals, the characters are always acting in the present moment, but no suspense or interest in plot whatsoever! I think Mann was aiming to make it like a Terrence Malick film...more of a poetic, artsy feel. If you love those kinds of films then you'll like this, but I think the New World is a good sleeping pill!

Capitalism: A Love Story (2009)

Provocative, humorous, and heartbreaking....

[7/10 · 2 October 2009]

We all know where Michael Moore stands on political issues. We've known this since his films gained popularity about 10 years or so ago. He's already ripped on capitalism in his previous movies. If you're a conservative, you clearly don't like him or his viewpoints, and that's OK. That's your right and this is America. That being said, I am going to judge this movie on its merits. I believe that if a conservative filmmaker in the same vein as Moore, but of course with opposing views could also make very good movies, I would also give them strong reviews if their films were well-made.

This film has its share of humorous moments, as Moore is wonderful at editing clips of old, random video footage to make you giggle. However, just like in his other films, these clips are used sporadically to break the tension about very serious and heartbreaking subject matter. You sometimes wonder if some of these heartbreaking interviews with people are staged, as Moore seems to be able to get them to cry on demand, yet they always appear genuine.

The one major flaw of this film is that Moore does not propose any solutions to the flaws of capitalism. He chooses not to delve deeper into the subject matter, and instead uses the 2 hours to simply complain about some folks being "rich and powerful." I feel that "Sicko" and "Bowling" did a much better job of looking at solutions, along with questioning why the problem is such a problem, rather than just complaining. If Moore believes in flat out socialism then he should say it and make a strong argument for it. It's easier for someone to just pick out the flaws of someone else's solution rather than come out with your own, and that's pretty much what Moore does here.

All in all, I still give it a 7/10 because it is well-made and Moore does bring up a topic that the general movie going public never really bothers to discuss. It's certainly very controversial, but I give him credit for trying to get a meaningful dialogue going. He just could have had the guts to take this subject matter to a deeper level.