Cpartak Reviews

The Notebook (2004)

Beautiful Film

[9/10 · 20 May 2005]

I went to watch "The Notebook" because my girlfriend had read the book and asked me to come watch it with her. Being a guy who does not enjoy romantic movies very much I was very reluctant about seeing this film. However, I can honestly say that I was blown away by this beautifully written, acted, and directed movie. I had only seen Ryan Gosling in one other movie, "Murder by Numbers", and was impressed by his performance in an otherwise forgettable picture. He has a great charisma and on-stage presence that few other actors have. Similarly, Rachel McAdams truly shines here in her breakout role as a rich southern girl who falls in love with Gosling's character. Not to be outdone by their younger counter-parts, Gena Rowlands and James Garner are also excellent in this film.

There are many things that I truly enjoyed about "The Notebook", most notably the simple but poignant love story between Noah and Allie. I think one of the hardest things to do in a film is to show true love, which is so rare in real life, and thus extremely difficult to replicate on screen. Nick Cassavetes does an exceptional job of presenting the story without any sappy or phony elements that would have made the film cheap and predictable. Instead, he allows Gosling and McAdams to become the characters of Noah and Allie and they take it from there. Their performances are truly outstanding, I could honestly feel the love between them in every scene. This was a completely new experience for me because I rarely watch romantic films, and even more rarely find them to be believable.

I would recommend this film to everyone, both male and female. I know that most guys will be hesitant to watch this movie, but they should not be. If you've ever been in love, and if you've ever felt about someone like you've never felt about anyone else, you will enjoy "The Notebook". And even if you've never been in love I think that you will find this movie to be an honest and sincere story about two people that never stopped loving each other until their very last moments together.

Fargo (1996)

Excellent Film

[9/10 · 5 April 2005]

Fargo is one of my favorite films of all time and in my opinion deserves to be in the top 10 films of the 90's. From the onset of the movie, with views of the snow covered North Dakota landscape and the beautiful and haunting music of composer Carter Burwell playing in the background until the very last scene, Fargo never lets up. This film is Joel and Ethan Cohen's masterpiece, a truly original and one of a kind work. Every aspect of the film is handled with the utmost precision and care. The screenplay, written by Joel and Ethan, is in my opinion flawless. The dialog is at times serious and at other times hilarious, but most importantly always real and believable. The screenplay would be worth nothing, however, without the superb cast of the film that truly makes the characters come to life. Frances McDormand is perfect as the pregnant sheriff who is assigned to the murder case involving Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare. Steve Buscemi is excellent as always, playing a sleazy kidnapper who is perfectly described in one of the best lines of the film as simply "funny looking - in a general kind of way". The best performance, however, comes from William H. Macy who is absolutely brilliant as a desperate man who has everything to lose. Macy completely envelops himself in the role and captures perfectly the essence of a broken man whose world is crumbling all around him. The final scene in the motel when he is caught is incredibly powerful because Macy makes you feel the pain and sorrow that a man must feel when he knows that he's going to prison for the rest of his life.

One of the things that I loved about this film is the colorful characters that are a trademark of every Cohen brothers film. In Fargo, these characters include dim witted hookers, psychopath kidnappers, a very pregnant sheriff, and a lot of snow. No matter how long or brief these characters are on the screen, however, they are all incredibly entertaining and fun to watch. That is one of the reasons that I enjoy films by the Cohen brothers. They have a great style and sense of humor that is all their own. They aren't afraid to be different from the Hollywood norm, and they make films on their own terms. Also, as evidenced by this film, they do a great job of getting the best out of every actor. I personally feel that William Macy and Frances McDormand have never been better before or since Fargo. I urge everyone to see this film and compare it to other great works of the last decade. I think you'll find that its place is right near the likes of Pulp Fiction, L.A. Confidential, The Usual Suspects and other great 90's films.

Signs (2002)

Disappointed

[5/10 · 15 March 2005]

I'm a big fan of M. Night Shyamalan and immensely enjoyed his other three films. However, I feel that all the things which were great about "The Sixth Sense", "The Village", and "Unbreakable" are contrasted by the disappointing and predictable "Signs". This film would be considered a dud for an ordinary director, but I am especially disappointed since it was made by a higher caliber of filmmaker in M. Night Shyamalan. Almost all of the elements that make his other films great are missing from "Signs". To me, this movie seems like a cheap imitation of Shyamalan's other three films. There is a small number of redeeming factors which I will get to first, however they are few and far between. First of, as in all of his other films Shyamalan does a great job of directing. I really enjoy the way he uses the camera and the abstract angles at which he prefers to shoot some of his scenes. The only other aspect of this movie that I liked was Mel Gibson's performance. There are only a handful of other actors that can bring so much humility and sincerity to a character. Gibson truly is a superb actor and his performance is absolutely top notch. The compliments, however, pretty much end here.

One of the most disappointing things about this film is that the plot simply doesn't hold water (no pun intended for those who've seen it). You watch it for two hours and at the end you're left wondering what truly was the point. Shyamalan attempts to convey a message of belief, or the loss of, in God and in other things that human beings have been debating over for thousands of years. Yet it's hard to take away any kind of serious message when you're looking at some alien that belongs in a corny 1950's horror film. Simply put, this message along with the film both miss the mark completely. Unlike the other three Shyamalan films, "Signs" left me completely devoid of any true feelings or thoughts. I think that "Stuart Litte" (which was written by M. Night) had a more profound message than did "Signs". What is most disappointing is that like them or not, Shyamalan's other films at least made you think. "Signs", on the other hand, only made me wonder what it was that Shyamalan was thinking when he made this film.

The Village (2004)

See this film, and draw your own conclusions

[8/10 · 11 March 2005]

I want to start of by saying that I've never had a more difficult time of rating a film than I did for "The Village". The reason for this being that it's not simply a movie which you love or hate, it's one that you think about after you're done watching it. Perhaps this wasn't the case for everyone who saw it, but it certainly was the case for me. I went into the theatre with certain expectations knowing that this was an M. Night Shyamalan film. After his three previous films you come to expect a certain essence that you wouldn't find in any other director's work. Shyamalan's films have their own style, look, and to a certain extent their own feel. I personally could not mistake any of his films for those of another director. With that having been said, "The Village" doesn't disappoint as far as acting and especially cinematography are concerned. As with his previous films, Shyamalan does a great job of extracting superb performances from his cast. This is especially true for Bryce Dallas Howard who delivers a first-rate performance as a blind girl who has the ability to see perhaps more than those without her affliction. Adrien Brody is also very good as the village idiot (no pun intended) who has more below the surface than meets the eye.

As I mentioned earlier, the cinematography and camera work in this film are excellent as well. The views of the village, especially at night, are perfect for setting the dark and sinister tone of the film. Shyamalan also does a great job of setting up the film's frightening moments by carefully and gradually bringing the audience in with his superb use of the camera lens. We're not scared of what's on the screen, we're scared of what what might be lurking behind it. This is one of the reasons that I enjoy Shyamalan's films, he never goes for the cheap thrill and instead chooses to create an atmosphere that will keep the audience guessing until the very end.

The final thing that I want to touch on regarding this film is of course the screenplay. It's difficult for me to label it simply as good or bad. I feel that it goes beyond those simple definitions. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Shyamalan is an extremely talented director and writer, and more importantly an absolute original. However, with "The Village" I feel that he wanted to express his opinion and at the same time send a message about today's society and the fear that people live in. It is this message that I feel may be the one downfall of this film. I believe that many people didn't get it, while others who did simply didn't agree with it. And there are of course those that didn't want to watch a film with a message and simply wanted to be entertained. Either way I think that the one thing all those people had in common is that they talked about the film after it was over, just as I'm talking about it now. (I strongly doubt that "Freddy Got Fingered" received 23,000 votes on this website). The point here is that "The Village" is the type of film that makes you think and want to talk to someone who's also seen it. I recommend it to anybody who enjoys films that are beyond the norm, but my advice is to watch it without any preconceived notions which can be established by reading reviews, including this one.

L.A. Confidential (1997)

Brilliant

[10/10 · 9 March 2005]

I usually refrain from reviewing films on IMDb unless I feel very passionately about them and believe that I need to voice my opinion. This can apply to both films that I loved or despised. Either way, I see no point in reviewing a mediocre film that I forget about the second I step out of the theatre. With that having been said, L.A. Confidential is nothing short of perfection. As with any great film everything starts with the screenplay which in this case was written by Brian Helgeland and Curtis Henson, the latter of which was also the director. The script was adapted from a novel by James Ellroy that I'm ashamed to say I haven't read. However, I have heard that many believed it to be an impossible task to adapt the novel into a film. That makes the screenplay of Helgeland and Henson all the more impressive. An equally daunting task for a great film is to assemble a top notch cast. Once again, L.A. Confidential hits the mark with one of the most impressive casts in recent film history. Russell Crowe, Kevin Spacey, Kim Basinger (who received an Oscar for her role), Guy Pearce, James Cromwell, and Danny DeVito comprise the absolutely top class cast of the film. Yet in my opinion, all of the aforementioned aspects of the film are not even the best part. The best part has to be the absolutely tremendous set designs, costumes, and general recreation of 1950's Hollywood culture. I feel that this was an amazing time and place in American history, and this film takes the audience there. One of the best scenes in L.A. Confidential involves two of the main characters running into a Hollywood starlet who they believe is a fake. What I love about this scene is how subtly the director reminds us that this isn't just any place in America, this is 1950's Hollywood where huge stars like Lana Turner can be found socializing with a member of the mob at a local hot spot. That is the beauty of this film. You feel like you're watching a 1950's film noir through a 1990's camera lens.

If you're taking the time to read my review, you're probably wondering why I haven't discussed the plot of the film. The answer to this question is simple, there is really no need. All you have to know is that it's a brilliant film that you should watch no matter what genre of movies you are into. This is in my opinion one of the top ten movies of the last decade and easily the best picture of 1997. Ironically, it lost the Best Picture Oscar that year to Titanic which I feel was the greatest oversight in recent Oscar history. This is a one of a kind film, the likes of which I'm afraid we won't see for a long time to come, if ever. Lastly, if you have not yet seen L.A. Confidential I hope that my review inspires you to do so. Conversely, if you have already experienced it I hope that you are reminded, if only for a brief moment, of what great film making truly is.

A Fish Called Wanda (1988)

One of the best (and most underrated) comedies of all time

[10/10 · 8 March 2005]

Before I review this film, I want to mention that I've seen it about ten times and have yet to stop laughing at any of the jokes. This is one of the best written and acted comedies that I've ever seen. The plot is airtight, and the jokes are perfectly timed and delivered. This is due in large part to the spectacular cast of the film. Jamie Lee Curtis, Johh Cleese, Michael Palin, and my personal favorite Kevin Kline as Otto the moronic ex-CIA agent who's too stupid to realize that he's stupid. The film centers around the four aforementioned actors who are involved in a bank robbery, and the conniving and backstabbing by each that takes place afterwards. A large portion of the comedic material in this film comes from the mixture, or more precisely clash, of British and American cultures. Kevin Kline's portrayal of Otto the red-blooded American with entirely too much ego and confidence is contrasted perfectly by John Cleese's reserved and in Otto's words "sexually repressed" English gentleman who is too scared to go out and live his life. Jamie Lee Curtis is also great as the title character who is determined to back-stab and cross anyone and everyone in order to get what she wants. Finally, there's Michael Palin as Ken the hit-man/animal lover/severe stutterer who must kill a key witness in order to protect his boss. If there are any funnier scenes than the ones where Ken must kill this witness, I haven't seen them. Palin is absolutely brilliant, easily one of the best comedic performances ever. The film is close to 2 hours long, but the plot is so clever and well structured that it's over before you know it. To me, that is one of the trademarks of a great film. You don't want this movie to end, and you're disappointed when it does. Do yourself a favor and watch A Fish Called Wanda and you will wonder why you haven't seen (or in many cases even heard of) this film before.

Nip/Tuck (2003–2010)

Best show on television next to The Sopranos

[16 February 2005]

I began watching Nip/Tuck by renting the first DVD of season 1 and since then I've been hooked. I'm a fan of other TV dramas like Law & Order and The Sopranos, the latter of which I think is the best drama of all time. I have to say that I never thought another drama could even come close to The Sopranos in terms of writing, direction, and acting. But in my opinion Nip/Tuck is as close as it gets. The first few episodes of season 1 draw you in by the sheer audacity of the subject matter. (I don't want to get into any details because I would hate to spoil it for anyone who hasn't watched and would like to start.) However, in episode 10 of the first season the show takes an unexpected turn and actually reveals a lot of heart. This came as a complete surprise to me because prior to that episode I watched the show as a guilty pleasure. From that episode on, I watched it because it was a powerful and gripping drama. And I must say that I haven't been disappointed with the show since. In my opinion what makes it so great is the fact that it tackles issues that are rarely seen on other dramas. And the way that the issues are presented oftentimes makes you think and form an opinion of your own. I don't think you can say that about many other shows. I haven't caught all episodes of season 2, although I have seen most of them. Luckily, the sophomore season of the show doesn't let up a bit and is as entertaining as the first. I recommend Nip/Tuck to everyone who enjoys superbly written and acted dramas but is sick and tired of the same cops, lawyers, and doctors formats that are prevalent on network television. Lastly, be advised that this is not "The OC" or "Judging Amy". This show deals with disturbing subject matter, and is not afraid to graphically portray any of it.

I just finished watching season 2 reruns on F/X and am at last caught up with the show. I felt compelled to come back to IMDb and add a comment about the second season. In one word, this show is nothing short of amazing. Just when you think that it can't get any stranger or more outlandish, it hits you right between the eyes with subject matter that would make a sailor blush. On Nip/Tuck, truly NOTHING is off limits. Every facet of human behavior, no matter how deep and dark, is covered with such brutal honesty that you don't know whether to look or turn away. However, at least for me, turning away is nearly impossible. This show is an addiction, and I'm afraid that I'll go into withdrawal until season 3 comes out. When season 5 of The Sopranos ended I thought that nothing would be able to fill that void, until I started watching Nip/Tuck. Now I can honestly say that it is the best show on television, an absolute masterpiece in its own right. I may start sounding like a broken record, but I'll say once again...do yourself a big favor and rent Season 1 on DVD. Whether you love, or even hate, the show...I don't think you'll be disappointed.

Sideways (2004)

Was I the only person that DIDN'T like this movie???

[2/10 · 14 February 2005]

First of, I'd like to start by saying that Sideways was one of the biggest disappointments that I've experienced in a very long time. I went into the movie theater with great expectations of a comedy that was funny and bittersweet at the same time (similar to Payne's previous film, "About Schmidt"). I came out feeling that I had been cheated. There were so many things that I disliked about this film that I don't even know where to begin. First, neither of the two characters is remotely likable. I know that Payne was trying to show the desperate nature of Giamatti's character in the scene where he steals money from his mother. But in all honesty, can any normal self-respecting person relate to that??? I'm not trying to sound high and mighty, but I cannot think of ANY reason to steal from my mother, much less doing so in order to fund a wine-tasting trip with one of my friends. Likewise, am I honestly supposed to believe Church's character when he begins to cry about losing his wedding rings and in doing so possibly losing his fiancée? Am I supposed to overlook the fact that he had sex with two women 6 DAYS before his wedding? Give me a break. Throughout the movie I did not feel that any of the characters were real, but that scene was the most ridiculous. The second thing that disappointed me was the fact that the movie was not funny. Before I go any further I should say that I enjoy dry and subtle humor ("Being John Malcovich", "Curb Your Enthusiasm"). That being said, I found absolutely nothing funny in this movie. There were a few moments that deserved a small chuckle, but that's about it. Perhaps I would've enjoyed the movie more if I was a wine connoisseur, which I must admit I'm not. As a matter of fact, the wine is the best and most likable character in the movie (aside from Virginia Madsen, who was very good). On that same note, one of the only redeemable factors of this movie was the cinematography and views of the California wine country which were beautiful. Also, although I did not like or feel any sympathy towards Giammatti's character, I have to admit that he's a good actor and delivered a solid performance. My overall description of this film is that it's a mediocre buddy pic that does not deserve any real acclaim. If, however, anyone who has not yet seen it decides to do so I have this advice...Do not believe all the hype surrounding this movie and do not expect a funny comedy. You will be disappointed. I know I was.

Since I wrote this review, I've spoken to several members of my family about this film and have been disappointed to find out that all of them liked it. I felt compelled to come back to IMDb and add another paragraph to my review because I honestly can't understand what it is that people see in this movie. Then, I read a very interesting review of "Sideways" that gave me a different perspective. The writer commented that characters in a film do not necessarily have to be likable in order for someone to enjoy watching them on screen. I thought about this and decided that it's a true statement, yet still thought that "Sideways" was boring and in my opinion completely unbelievable. This lead me to ponder the question of what makes a film, or more precisely what makes a character, interesting to watch. I came to the conclusion that a great film character doesn't have to be good or evil, likable or repulsive, funny or somber. The only thing that they should have to do is grab your attention and make you want to root for, and in some cases against, them. They should elicit some kind of emotions from you, whether those emotions be good or bad. Ralph Cifaretto from the Sopranos is a great example. He was a completely repulsive character that no normal human being could possibly like or have respect for. But Joe Pantoliano played him so well that you couldn't take your eyes off the screen. You had to keep watching to see what he would do next. The two main characters in "Sideways", on the other hand, are not the deep and complicated personalities that critics would have you believe. They're boring, overly simplified (in Jack's case), and unbearably dreary (in Miles' case) characters that give you no reason to want to know or care what they will do next. Personally, I could have cared less if Maya ends up with Miles at the end of the film. For me, that is the biggest failure of this movie. The only emotion that I felt, other than anger for having spent money on this dud, was remorse for Jack's wife for marrying such a prick and a similar sadness for Miles' mother for raising such a failure. In the end, this film fails because it's a character study of two completely hollow, one-dimensional, and uninteresting characters. I suppose I would not feel so strongly about "Sideways" had it not received such glowing reviews. I felt the need to express my opinion simply to show others who hated it that they're not the only ones that feel like someone is trying to pull the wool over their eyes with this over-hyped garbage.