espenshade55 Reviews

Never Let Me Go (2010)

A mixed reaction to an abridgment of greatness

[7/10 · 17 September 2010]

As a fan of the book I had a mixed reaction to this adequate yet overall uninspiring adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro's brilliant novel.

Looking back at my viewing experience I was reminded of the early adaptation of 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' from the earliest era of films, in which the filmmakers expected you to have read the book and simply showed you interpretations of various scenes.

Alex Garland's screenplay boasted the ambition of including a little bit of everything from Ishiguro's 300 page book in his slightly under two hour movie. The result is a simple abridgment, we have time to realize the love brewing between the characters, the strained friendship between Mulligan's Kathy and Knightley's Ruth, and the dilemma of their caregivers at Hailsham. But the film lacks much the catharsis and the commentary that made the book so great.

Romanek has proved himself to be a capable director, but here he made some negative decisions which really removed much of the impact of the plot. Adam Kimmel's cinematography is a stand out here, and given the competition so far I wouldn't be surprised if he receives an Oscar nomination for his work.

The calm collection and stoic nature of much of the acting can be seen as insipid or uninteresting to some. But I found the acting to be quite appropriate, the tight lipped, proper British style of this movie provided an nice contrast and balance to a story which could have turned into a mindless melodramatic tear jerker if not handled correctly.

In the end, I think active viewer-ship is of paramount importance to this movie. The film is never interested in simply handing the audience its ideas. Rather it called upon us to dig for meaning. I would say the plot itself served as a bit of a metaphor, and that intrigued me. And, despite some of the negative artistic liberties which were taken in this adaptation, I feel that it did well enough to create an involving, though provoking, and sometimes heartbreaking experience.

Despite its flaws, 'Never Let Me Go' has been one of the few strong film that we've had this year. And, if your one of those people who goes to the movies once or twice a month, I'd say 'Never Let Me Go' is one of your better bets for an agreeable experience at the movies right now.

Case 39 (2009)

A Horror dud of epic proportions

[3/10 · 16 September 2010]

The horror genre seems to be in a constant state of de-evolution and even when there is an attempt to match the classics in fright such as 'The Exorcist' the plots seem hackneyed and laughable, such is the case with this film.

Renee Zellweger is the films heroin, a social worker dealing with child abuse cases, who benevolently takes in a child named Lilith who was nearly incinerated in an oven by here seemingly insane parents. Zellweger relinquishes young Lilith's case in order to take her into her home for safe keeping whilst the state finds a suitable foster family. Despite the fact that Zellweger had to give up the case she seems strangely able to interview the parents in the institution and gain access to the house in which the attempted murder took place with no difficulty what-so-ever as she slowly finds that Lily isn't what she seems to be.

Zellweger gives her usual hammed up, histrionic performance which is largely void of any real resonance or honesty. But her lacking exploits in the realms of acting are merely the icing on the cake of this post summer release dreck which we have come to know all too well. Bradly Cooper is surprisingly adequate in his role as the Zellweger's romantic interest but he is largely forgettable. In contrast, Jodelle Ferland's portrayal of the demon child is quite good for a child actor and deserves some recognition.

The film suffers from a lack of actual scares, relying too much on the phony, manipulative moments of quiet followed by a startling bump which usually turned out to just be a dog or a harmless comrade. The moments of terror were overwhelmingly not terrifying, and the build up to those moments simply served as give-aways for what was coming. The film making is uninspiring, the direction was pretty basic, and cinematographer Hagen Bogdanski was able to create some visually beautiful (though all- to-often out of focus) shots.

I am now going to produce a spoiler, so if your concerned stop reading.

There comes a moment at the end of the film where the plot holes and character decision become laughable to the point of defenestrating any glimmer of common sense. Zellweger decides to try and kill the demon child by locking her in her room and burning the house down (keep in mind that she is the only one who knows that the child is a demon, so everyone else would figure that an innocent child died in the blaze). Zellweger is surrounded by flames, and at that moment she decides to save her fish by transferring them into a deferent bowl. Which means not only that she leaped heroically through the flames to engage in the process of filling up another bowl and retrieving the fish, but doesn't that also raise questions from the fireman and police officers on the scene that Zellweger was able to save her fish but was unable to make it to the child?

This movie is a dud through and through. You should skip it.

No Country for Old Men (2007)

It took some time to ponder

[10/10 · 27 January 2008]

Due to the lateness of this comment, and due to the fact the movie will likely soon be out of theater's and on the DVD shelves I fear this review will be seldom read. I saw the film opening day, then three more times during its run at the box office and only now do I feel apt to give it the praise it deserves.

I would go so far to venture that this is a perfect film, this is the only time that I have said this, and might be the only time I ever will. This film is crafted beautifully in all aspects of the film-making process from the opening shots to the ending monologue. Some have said that this is the Coen's best film since "Fargo", I would say "Fargo" was training for this film. "No Country" has a far more pessimistic view of the world, and is secular in more ways than one. The film resonates with a feeling of controlled chaos, in the end I feel it's because the film is ABOUT chaos.

"No Country" boasts some of the most intense, gut wrenching scenes ever crafted and its built out of specificity. The simple creaking of floor boards, the sound of a light bulb being unscrewed, the movement of a crumpled candy wrapped unfolding all add to this world that the Coen's, with the help of Roger Deakins' flawless photography were able to build from top to bottom.

The most prominent criticism I hear from my peers in film school, or from the general public comes from the confusing ending. I feel obligated to address this because I truly believe that the ending is what made this movie what it was. What ultimately made me fall in love with this film was the fearlessness in the story telling and the clarity of mind which allowed Joel and Ethan to see deeper into the world than the rest of us choose to, or want to see. In the end, the film is about chaos, the antagonist is fate, age, and finally circumstance. Thus I believe it to be a misinterpretation to say the ending came out of left field, or was simply erroneous to the plot, because I believe the real plot lies beneath the obvious one.

It is a film about the way humanity deals and copes with an ever changing world that may eat us whole or simply leave us behind. Its a pondering with little commentary, its existentialism in its truest form. It questions without fear, and bravely leaves the audience to question.

Running Scared (2006)

Good action Melodrama

[8/10 · 28 February 2006]

This film is a great example of what the action Melodrama genre can be. Sure its over the top, sure its gory, sure the profane language is hard to miss, but it all enhances a very deliberate tone and plot in this film.

Paul Walker was one of the biggest surprises in this movie, I'm used to seeing him as a wooden, brain dead, dull performer that has alway's failed to interest me. but he had a good director behind him here, backed up with a good story, and an interesting melodramatic character to help him along. Not to mention, in a film like this performance is hardly the most sought after element. All the actors had a simple job, take this character for what they are and play it as big and strange as you possibly can. If your written as a schmuck, be the worse of them, if your a hero be the best.

This film did bear the Tony Scott, tripped on acid kind of film style that put a visceral, ugly, dramatic look ahead of beautiful imagery. This was a dark film! It was shot in color but there were quite a few scene's where they blasted the actor's with so many foot candles that there was hardly a hue to be seen. Of course this was further accentuated with a black void of a background. the hockey rink scene was particularly impressive with its use of blue lighting and flat space.

There was a great deal of what has been known as a somewhat documentary film style, there was a lot of hand held camera and jarring movement, but it didn't get the the Paul Greengrass extent to where you don't know up from down (unless that's what they were going for). It was one of the few time that this film style was in fact, effective in enhancing the story telling process.

This was quite simply a good movie, it was a popcorn film that allows you to just sit back and let the wild ride happen. I can definitely appreciate such films every now and again. This one is worth seeing.

The Great Raid (2005)

One of the best films of the Year

[9/10 · 6 August 2005]

John Dahl has done his share of good films over the years but none of them came close to this film about American POW's being held in Japan and the soldier's that risked everything to get them out.

Knowing the history of what these men went through, you go into the film expecting to see images that will be hard to watch. You do see these but they don't go over the top, they show you the hardships that these men faced and the intensity of the battle sequences put you right in the middle of everything.

The cinematography is worth mentioning. It was interesting how they kept the image slightly over exposed in the background to focus you in more and more on the actor's. It made this film about the people and not the spectacle, which is obviously how this film was intended.

The performances were good all around. Franco and Brat are both talented performers that fit well into there perspective parts. The stand out in this film for me was Joseph Fiennes as a POW who kept command of his troops and did his best to help them through while he fought his own battle with malaria. His physical performance was superb and he made you feel what his character was feeling.

When I was waiting to get into this film, I talked to an elderly man who showed up a little after me. I learned that he was a POW in Germany for a year in WW2. After the film, all they had to say was how powerful it was, and what an affect it had. The film showed these men as just that, men. Great men that were willing to sacrifice everything for there fellow soldier's, for there brother's in arm's. As they said in the trailer, "there is a price for freedom, a price that some are willing to pay." All of these men were willing to pay that price.

Batman Begins (2005)

The intelligence of independent cinema meets the high budget event film

[8/10 · 15 June 2005]

This is one of the few examples of a film where the and intelligence of an independent filmmaker gets to intertwine with a huge, big budget, Hollywood event film.

Nolan (Memento) takes this "Batman" film far beyond the previous series created by Tim Burton and then destroyed by Joel Schumacker. This film was a character study, a humanist exploration through the idea's of revenge, justice, and sin that show up in our culture. This is were the previous series dwindled, there was no connection between the bat and the man.

Christian Bale gave a wonderful portrayal of the caped crusader in this film. I do think that he gave a better performance than anyone in the past. The thing is he also had a more complex character to portray than the other's. All of the other films showed you that character after he already became "Batman". This film required Bale the portray a massive character ark, from the man who believed in revenge to the one who believed in justice, from the man who thinks only inward, to the man who is completely selfless. This created a much more interesting feel to the franchise. With the previous film's, Batman was a bit of an allegory, he was a representation of an ideal rather than a man. This film showed how the man became the symbol and thus it shifted more to the analytical approach to humanism.

Still, this is Batman. And that means that action is a must. And this film had plenty of it. I was sitting on the edge of my seat from the beginning. Moreover, they were done in a way that made it believable that one man could take out an army, especially because they were made so you barely ever saw him. For once it wasn't a film where you have hundreds of bad guys that aren't able to hit the broad side of a barn, they just never got a shot off.

The cinematography in this film was leaps and bounds in front of the original series as well. The other films never had the same kind of dramatic lighting or use of color filter's that this film had. The cinematography in this film was good enough to tell a story in and of itself, it gave new meaning and a new feel to the scene's.

The cast was strong all around. As mentioned above Christain Bale took the title character to bold new levels. Gary Oldman gave another great performance, even though it was a small part he brought something to it that other actor's wouldn't, he really deserves a lot more credit than he's received throughout his career.

This is the best "Batman" film yet. I can't wait to see it again and any of you that are "Batman" fans will be able to appreciate this film.

Crash (I) (2004)

Absoulte Masterpiece

[7/10 · 2 June 2005]

Paul Haggis seems to have just popped up all of the sudden, first with "Million Dollar Baby" and now with "Crash" which goes way beyond entertainment and offers some of the most interesting, compelling and realistic character's ever created.

The story follows several different people in LA, all with different job, different social status, different dreams, different beliefs. Yet haggis was able to fine commonality in diversity and masterfully allowed these character's lives to collied in the course of only a couple of days.

The character development in this film is better than pretty much any film I've ever seen. Most films try to create an allegory, or if not that they simply conform to formulaic design. They create character's that can do no wrong or can do no good. In this film all of the character's are shown as having a capacity for both, just as humanity has its flaws and virtues in reality as do the fictional character's created by Haggis. There are times when the man that is made to look like the good guy does something completely unforgivable and the schmuck does something completely selfless and noble. Speaking from experience, it is very hard to create this kind depth in any fictional being, its even harder to do it when you have that many principal character's.

The dialog was very interesting and smart. I can imagine it would be very difficult to create the variation that was included in this film. He used several different vernacular's for the different character's based on there social status, level of education, occupation, etc. It is so realistic that it allows you to be drawn in from the very beginning and held to the end.

I found the cinematography interesting. It isn't on the same level as John Mathison or Matthew Labique but it was still good to look at. It reminded me a little of the look of Steven Soderburg's "Traffic" minus the variation of color tints. It was a sort of grainy image which gave the film an interesting effect, very dark and gritty. I felt it fit the subject matter perfectly.

I was absolutely amazed to find out that this film was shot on only seven million dollars. What Haggis was able to do with the minuscule budget that definitely would have inhibited them in regards on-location shooting, scheduling and other things. This film is proof that the bigger budget doesn't mean the better film.

This is definitely recommended. It is a beautiful film. Completely original and unique. This is truly one of a kind. Don't miss it.

Cinderella Man (2005)

This was a masterpiece

[9/10 · 30 May 2005]

There have been several great boxing movies made throughout the years, particularly Raging Bull and the more recent Million Dollar Baby, Cinderella Man is right up there with the best of them.

Director Ron Howard has proved himself as being one of the best film directors of our time. he has a great understanding in the complex aesthetics of film making, different film stocks, and an uncanny ability to work with actors. Much of the film was stylized but not to the point that it subtracted from the effectiveness of the story, rather it enhanced it.

The cinematography was very well done for the most part. Simply the choice of film stock gave scene's new meaning and an enhanced feel. The only problem was unnecessary camera movement. It is definitely justified during the actual boxing sequences but there were several scene's that were not very intense that still had the camera bouncing around all over the place. It served as a distraction more than a dramatic effect.

The performances were really good. Russell Crow has again shown the extent of his talent in a nearly flawless portrayal of Braddok. I haven't been too thrilled with Renee Zelwigger recently, especially after her woefully over the top performance in Cold Mountain but Ron Howard was able to bring her down to a believable level. Paul Gamatti is still one of the best, yet most overlooked actors out there and he gave another Oscar caliber performance in this film.

Still, the story in and of itself was great. In most cases when it comes boxing movies the main character's are complete schmucks and completely unlikable. Braddok was one boxer that was also a truly good person, a man fighting for his home and his family, simply for the ability to live. He was grateful for everything that he had and his story was definitely worth telling.

I hope people don't look at this and say, "just another boxer film". because that isn't how I saw it. This was a true work of art about a man who's resolve, perseverance, and devotion allowed him to capture the imaginations of an entire nation. This was a truly great film.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Wow

[9/10 · 19 May 2005]

The Star Wars franchise has always proved to be visually stunning and Revenge of the Sith definitely keeps up this trend. However, this film has something the the previous two films did not have, an element of inner conflict, of pain, the Revenge of the Sith is a tragedy that at least starts to get back to the ways of the original trilogy.

Over the years I have realized that George Lucas could not write dialog to save his life and this film is no exception, but lets face it none of us go to see Star Wars to hear David Mamet quality screen writing. And, even though there isn't much in the way of dialog it was still effective enough for the sake of story telling. That was the strength of this film was the complexity and power of the story which I actually think could be the best of all six films rivaled possibly by the Empire Strikes Back. In the last two films Lucas was too much on the side of cheap flashy entertainment with no real though, Sith gives us a study of humanity, temptation, desperation, devotion, and betrayal.

There is very little that I can complain about in the way of cinematography. HD has proved itself time and time again, especially in Sith and the recently released Sin City. The only problems that ever came up is there is occasionally a slight blur of the image with slow pan shots that you don't get with film until the camera's really jerking around. Still, this was only every once in a while and I was probably the only person that would care. Still, there were several scene's that were incredibly well lit, particularly the scene in which Palpaten tells Aniken about the powers that the Dark Side can offer. There were some interesting dramatic lighting techniques used in this film that really made it interesting to look at.

The acting was better in this film than it was in the previous two (thats not saying much). Of course they were inhibited a little by the weak dialog but they still did a good job with it. After seeing the last film I never thought that Hayden Christensen would have the talent to develop the Aniken character well enough to show his transition to the dark side, I'm pleased to say that I was wrong. I still wish they were able to hold onto Gary Oldman for the voice of General Grevous, I think he would have been able to bring something interesting to the character but what are you going to do. Portman has been giving several good performances recently and she managed to keep it going here but the stand out of the cast for me was McDirmand as Palpatine, he was very articulate and very convincing, it was truly a great performance.

This is recommended strongly to any fan of the Star Wars franchise. This film might actually be one of the top three of all six of the films and it blew the previous two prequels out of the water. I saw the first showing possible at midnight this morning, I plan to see it several more times before it goes on DVD.

The Jacket (2005)

I wont claim to have understood it completely but it was still a good film

[6/10 · 5 April 2005]

Adrien Brody has done a lot of good work in his career, there is no denying that. This is not his best work, nor Keira Knightley's, nor Jennifer-Jason Leigh's but it still had several good elements.

First of all, to enjoy this film you can't ask questions like "Why has nobody gotten Kris Kristofferson arrested for putting this guy in a box?" Because you will never get a particularly good answer. As with most films involving people supposedly shifting back and forth through time you have to abandon your sense of reality.

As for dialog, I think there were a few lines in there that they put in so they could make the trailer sound good. In the trailer for this the have the classic "don't act like I don't know whats real line" that is absolutely essential in any film with a mental patient protagonist. The line sounded great in the trailer but it seemed completely unmotivated in the context of the actual story. This annoyed me a little bit but there was still some very good dialog in the film.

Again, Adrian Brody is a good actor and he did a fine job with this film, certainly nothing special, but he performance fit. Keira Knightley did a good job of getting rid of the accent, but I still don't think she felt comfortable with it, she slurred her speech a little and much many of her lines didn't seem like they were delivered naturally. Still, her character development was much better in this film than in "King Arthur", and I did feel that she understood what was going on in the characters head.

The story was pretty interesting, yet it did defy logic in places where it shouldn't have. As I said earlier, film like this are not supposed to be logical or realistic. They are meant to confuse the heck out of you and make you feel for the character's. Overall, this task was accomplished. These were characters that you could feel for even though they are in a predicament that we can never truly understand, that is the dilemma that most filmmakers face with a project like this. How do we make people understand what this guys going through when no body in the history of the world has ever experienced something like this? The answer is you don't make it a film about a guy shifting in time and finding out about his own death and trying to change the future. Instead they made it a film about confusion, which is some thing that we have all felt and something that we can all understand.

It was filmed very well too. They obviously used a fast film because there was a little bit of film grain that was visible but it gave a gritty feel to the film that really worked for me. There was also a good use of dramatic lighting, and it was lit so brightly that you really got a feel for setting in which this film takes place.

I would suggest seeing this, but again, allow yourself to overlook the parts that are never fully explained or are completely illogical and you will have a good experience.

Taking Lives (2004)

Good idea, terrible, awful, atrocious, monstrosity of an ending

[3/10 · 4 April 2005]

They obviously had a great idea going into production of this film. How can you make a bad movie about a serial killer that kills people and takes there identities and follow the woman that is on the case and how she finally brings him down. Well, they managed to do that with this formulaic, boring film with a tacked on ending.

Don't get me wrong, it did have its entertaining moments but there certainly weren't enough to save this film. It is appalling that the script came out appearing so haphazard and unbelievable after it went through so many rewrites by so many different people.

The performances weren't particularly strong in this film. Angelina Jolie hasn't given us much to be impressed with in a very long time, and the supporting cast wasn't much better.

As for the ending. Lets just put it this way, the second you are watching a movie and they rule the guy out right off the bat and say that he couldn't have done it, he did it. You knew that Ethan Hawk was the killer from six minutes into the film. There were no surprises.

As followed is the bad crime thriller formula for Hollywood: Large breasted cop gets on a murder case, the killer gets introduced, they don't know it the killer (we aren't supposed to either but anyone with half a brain figures it out), killer toys with large breasted cop for a long time without her knowing it, inevitably the killer and the large breasted cop have sex (this is used to get the teenage men in to see the film despite the bad reviews its bound to get), then the cop finds out that her love interest is the killer, she gets over it in thirty seconds flat and eventually kills him. This is how they make money, this is how they probably did make money on this film, unfortunately it had no artistic appeal.

I wouldn't recommend waisting your time on this one. I know that I'll have a lot of guys that I went to high school with disagree with me on what I'm about to say next but I'll say it any way. Angelena Jolies breasts are not enough to make a good movie.

Beyond the Sea (2004)

Not without its flaws but still worth seeing

[6/10 · 4 April 2005]

This film is only for certain people. Kevin Spacy did a great job, as usual and the rest of the cast was very convincing as well. Still, I failed to connect with the characters as much as I should have.

Again Spacy gave a strong performance. I do think that he was too old for the role though. When they mention his age as being in the thirties after the film had already covered several years of his adult life it completely threw me off, Kevin Spacy just looked too old to be pull that off.

This is your classic musical in a lot of ways. It did have the elements of music coming out of nowhere and everybody randomly breaking into dance numbers, but it didn't bother me. These were moments in the play where you were seeing more of Bobby Darins feelings at that particular time in his life rather then giving an accurate, believable portrayal of it. This worked pretty well for me in most cases but I understand that a lot of people simply wont get it.

There were times where the framing of the shots was absolutely terrible. When the actors heads are being cut off by the top of the frame you know that there is something terribly wrong going on with that cinematographer. Also the color composition wasn't up to par with a lot of films that I have seen recently.

Kate Boseworth gave a good turn as Sandra Dee; also John Goodman and Bob Hoskins were very believable in there roles. Looking at this film when it comes to acting reveals really no problems.(other than Spacey's age.) Overall, I would recommend this, but only to fans of Bobby Darin, those who like movies that follow the classic musical film style, or those who don't mind some atrocious camera work.

Sin City (2005)

A great modern take on Film Noir

[10/10 · 3 April 2005]

This is the kind of film that lets you know right from the beginning that you are in for the ride of your life. From beginning to end the story's that they tell are powerful, involving, and yes, extremely violent.

One thing that I found intriguing was the structure of the story. It was reminiscent of Pulp fiction in this manner. You get introduced to one character and you see his story unfold, then the next, then the next. But what is really great is how they brought other character's into the other persons story. During Micky Rourks bit you get a glimpse of Clive Owen and then after Mickey Rourk is finished they tell you why Clive was there. In the end everything comes together in a very interesting way.

As for cinematography, I have this to say. I'm a film student right now, the second I go pro I'm using HD and only HD because if that the kind of look you can get out of it there is no reason to spend the extra money on the 35 mm film camera's. For what they were trying to do with this film High Definition was the only way to go. They made ever element of Sin City, including the actors look smooth. And the composition of the shadows was absolutely amazing.

The acting in and of itself would usually not impress anyone if it was not for the overall feel of the film. Really what you got were performances reminiscent of the 1930s noir films like "Double Indemnity" or the "Maltese Falcon". Of coarse these are very different stories but they still bare some basic similarities that made performances like this motivated, and even more powerful than they would have been had the simply gone with what we consider now to be proper acting style.

I am usually a big opponent of the use of voice over but it was used perfectly in this movie. It was needed and it was completely motivated. Of coarse, voice over is a common element in the noir genre and that still holds true for neo-noir films such as this. It opens a window to there innermost thoughts and allows us to see a full human even if we only get to follow his story for a little while. It also worked simply because of the phenomenal writing. It was witty, it was intelligent, it was funny, and it was at the same time serious. Really top notch writing.

This is a film that you will never forget and I guarantee you I will see it a couple more times before it hits DVD. The bottom line is, to miss "Sin City" while it is in theater's is to simply let cinematic history pass you by.

Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959)

All style, no story

[4/10 · 29 March 2005]

I never fell asleep in a movie until we started studying the French New Wave cinema in my international film and television class, but this was a monstrosity. Alain Resnais has made some incredible films. Most notably the holocaust documentary Night and Fog. This is not up to par.

I never thought I would see a film that ran out of story when its only ninety minutes long. The opening sequence was beautifully shot but it just seemed to go on and on and wouldn't stop, not to mention it was irrelevant to the story. This film had two messages. One is, those damned American's going around bombing people. The other is a love story between a french woman with a dark past and a Japanese man.

This movie looses ground in several ways. One is the use of excessive voice over. Voice overs are okay if they are essential in letting people know the back story and you are unable to do that any other way. But these voice overs account for a large percentage of the film. They never stopped, they just kept going, and going , and going, and going, and going, and going. You get the idea.

Well, eventually the story takes us to yet another endless sequence of the couple eating dinner at a restaurant and the woman complaining about her life to a man who lost his family in the war, his story we here very little about. And, like most older french films the women gets a little riled up, the guy slaps her and back hands her, she smiles "thanks for snapping me out of it" and keeps on going. Of all of the french films I've seen this semester Jean-Luc Goddard's film "Contempt" is the only one that had a slap actually mean something and actually appear to cause some physical pain.

Believe it or not the story just dwindled from there. It goes into yet another voice over about Hiroshima's cruel fate and this is followed by a half an hour of the same scene repeated over and over and over and over and over again in different locations. The woman enters a location, the man follows her, he asks her to stay, she refuses and leaves; she enters another location, the man follows her, he asks her to stay, she refuses and leaves; she enters another location, the man follows her and asks her to stay, she refuses and leaves. Bored yet? I guarantee you they repeated that scene more than three times too.

Bottom line, just because its french and its old doesn't make it great art. Quality storytelling is essential in the making of any film and that is something that Hirshima Mon Amour does not offer.

Hitch (I) (2005)

Kevin James is the Redeeming Factor

[5/10 · 29 March 2005]

Yes this does contain spoilers if you are completely dense about the Hollywood formula for romantic comedy's. Man meets girl, man likes girl, man and girl are too different to get together, man and girl get together anyway, one of them does something to screw it up and they break up for 15 minutes, man and girl get back together and live happily ever after. How incredibly shocking. (Sarcasum in case you didn't catch that.

This film did have some entertaining moments. Unfoutunatley they all focused around the character played by Kevin James. The character in and of its self is nothing out of the ordinary. Another product of formulaic Hollywood cinema. Lets face it, every film needs a socially dense fat guy to stumble around like an idiot. Foutunatley James was able to bring something extra to the character despite the fact he wasn't given much to work with. Realistically, James himself accounted for about four out of the five stars I gave in the rating of the film.

Eva Mendes did nothing for me in this film, well nothing good anyway. As the rest of this film goes her character is again a very formulaic and very much not interesting character. The thing is she as an actress didn't bring anything interesting to the character either. All she managed to give was a flat, simple and boring performance. Still the worse thing that this character brought to the film was in the script. Remember at the top when I mentioned that one of the people in the couple inevitably screws up. Well Eva Mendes screwed up the relationship with Hitch big time. Most of the time this part of the formula works because the thing that they did was usually by accident, not out of spite, and it doesn't permanently harm anyone. What Eva Mendes' character did in this film had me rooting against the inevitable reconciliation at the end. This woman is a journalist, who on very slim evidence released a story that could have and very easily would have destroyed the lives of three people. This was not a likable person and it made the intended happy ending a morbid one for me.

I though the cinematography left something to be desired. The color composition wasn't great, the picture quality as a whole wasn't spectacular, and the images for a lot of the film simply didn't seem to be lit correctly. Still, nowadays it seems that studios don't think they need great cinematographers for certain genres, comedy is one of them.

Really, I'm tired of these Hollywood comedy's that have been done to death. Don't get me wrong, I like comedy but it can't be something where you can actually feel your brain rot as you watch stupid people get into stupid situations that eventually leads to a stupid and tacked on solution. Please don't make me wait until the next Charlie Kaufman film before I see my next comedy. Still if thats what I have to do to avoid patronizing, dumbed down films like this than so be it.

Russian Ark (2002)

A Cinematic Masterpiece

[9/10 · 29 March 2005]

I can't imagine what Alexander Sokurov must have been going through when the first and only shooting day came around. One day to do something that has never been attempted before, using two thousand actors and after having dumped an unconceivable amount of money into the film, if something goes wrong the project is completely scraped.

As a drama, there is nothing like it that I have ever seen. There is no real discernible plot outline, it is simply a man experiencing Russian history in a strange and hypnotic way. This is a story of Russian culture, it is a story about what makes that nation what it is. There is a new kind of conflict created here, a man struggles to understand the importance of such objects, of such people, of such events that are shown in this film. But in retrospect they explain it as an understanding of humanity. What we are destined for, and why we are as important as any of these historical figures.

The first thing that interested me about the film of coarse was the idea of the single shot. I'm a film student, so any chance that I get to see a film that really is the first of its kind I have to give it a shot. A lot of people seem to not understand the idea or importance of taking it in one shot. Was Sokurov just trying to set a record or did he really do this because it was right for the story? After watching Russian Ark I think that it was simply the right way to shoot the film, it gave you a sense that you were swimming along with the events as they transpired, it let you see the connection of one time period to the next. It let you enjoy the tour of the magnificent winter palace, but it kept you involved in the story in a way that traditional methods could not.

The thing that surprised me about the film was the perception of time. When I think of reasons for shooting a movie in one shot it comes with the idea that it is a story that is told in real time. A story that is made up of a chain of events that directly intertwine with each other and therefore makes it motivated for you to follow the events around as they transpire. Yet, this is one of the few films ever made in which time is completely irrelevant. you never really got the feel that time was elapsing in any way shape or form. You just saw segments of history pop up around the museum. The motivation for this film seemed to be more to alter the viewers perception of space. It allows you to see the grand scale of some of these incredible rooms but beyond that you get to see transitions into other scene's in ways that cannot be achieved through any other techniques. The man goes from an empty hall way into the next room that may be filled with a massive number of people, or just various historical characters, and the setting could be a century before or after the scene we had just witnessed.

Many people that I had talked to said to make sure you watch this film when your wide awake or it will put you to sleep. I watched this at around 9pm on a Monday night after a heavy day of classes and after I had finished it I could not get myself to sleep. I realized that I had witnessed one of the greatest historical landmarks of the film industry. It is films like this that change the cinema for the better. That allow us to see what these advancements that we make can mean. Just the fact that something like this was attempted is incredible to me, the fact that it was actually completed successfully is beyond comprehension. By all stretch of the imagination, it shouldn't have worked, something should have gone incredibly wrong. I guess Murphy's law took a day off for Alexander Sokurov.

This film is very much recommended. For those of you that are art or history buffs, this is a must see. For film students the same applies to you. And if your a schmuck like me and you fall into all of these categories it will be an experience that you will never forget.

The Merchant of Venice (2004)

One of the Greatest Shakepearian adaptations I've ever seen

[8/10 · 25 March 2005]

With most cases film and theater are incompatible and that fact does not allow some great plays to be put into film. Shakespeare writes in a way that can be translated well into film. His plays allowed the the audience to use there imaginations to take them to various locations that he could not bring them on the stage, but on film we are now able to take these people to these places. The Merchant of Venice is a perfect example of what the cinema can do for some of these incredible plays. Lavish sets, a large ensemble cast and brilliant use of dramatic lighting techniques allowed Radford to create something that cinema can create that no other medium can.

Al Pacino was incredible as Shylok. As an actor of his prominence you expect a moving and powerful performance but he even went beyond those expectations. For a long time he was known for being an avid Shakespeare fan but the only time you got to see him perform Shakespeare was in his film "Looking for Richard". He knew the character, he understood him inside and out, he took an approach that few actors in that role have and he made it work brilliantly.

As for the story, there were parts of the play that were cut out as is expected with any Shakesperean adaptation but they didn't pull a Franco Zefferelli and completely butcher the play to the point where the brilliance of the story is lost. Much of the dialog in the original play that was removed was probably removed in order to avoid a riot. For example, when the character of Lacelot is introduced in the film he speaks a line or two into a mirror that don't seem particularly important, in the play he goes on a page and a half long rant about how he hates his Jewish boss.

Even though they did remove moments like this they were still able to maintain the main point of the story, which is a question of racial and religious politics, at least in the parts of the story that feature the conflict between Shylok and Antonio, and the part where Jessica plans to convert to Christianity because she fell in love with a Christan.

Many people will be thrown off because the play as marked as one of Shakespears comedy's. In this case the word comedy means that there are some funny parts, and, unlike in his tragedies not EVERYBODY dies in the end. This story is a drama. How many comedy's do you know of that have lines like "The pound of flesh that I demand of him is dearly bought" in them. Again, this is a story about racial and religious conflict. This is a story about greed, about pain, about betrayal, and about a men that are willing to sacrifice, willing to die, or willing to kill for what they believe.

Rory O'Shea Was Here (2004)

A beautiful and Unique story

[8/10 · 31 January 2005]

I saw this film at the sundance film festival. I was hoping to go see the Jacket but it was sold out so I ended up buying a ticket for this, I am not disappointed.

Rory O'Shea Was Here is a great story about to physically handicapped young men who are trying to live as normal a life as they possibly can. It starts out with an unlikely friendship that begins when Rory is sent to live in the same assisted care facility as Michael Connelly. Rory is immediately trying to bend the rules and annoying the nurses, whereas Michael has never caused trouble in years of being at the facility. Rory an Michael become friends after they discover that Rory is the only one who can understand Michaels inarticulate speech.

They both begin to urge for the freedom of the real world and to become as independent as they possibly can. Not because they are mistreated but because they needed that feeling of independence, and they would rather take the risks of the outside then live in the safe but confining facility.

This is a story of one of the most unlikely but strongest friendships in the history of the cinema. This is the story of two men who have been given a hard life, who stuck by each other through it all, although they did fight, and they did have a different outlook on the world the completed each other. Rory gives Michael a life that he could have never known, a life where he can be free and actually live. Michael gives to Rory the knowledge that there is a deeper meaning to life and that it is a beautiful gift.

This is the best film that I saw at sundance. It is comical when it could be and dramatic when it had to be. A beautiful film.

Meet the Fockers (2004)

Too Much Focker Humor

[5/10 · 13 January 2005]

I liked Meet the Parents much more than meet the Fockers for a very simple reason, they didn't find one thing that seemed funny and then wear it out until it looses all meaning. That was my problem with meet the Fockers, there was too much "My names Focker and my mom's a sex therapist, hardy har har."

I do think that this film was entertaining. Maybe something that I would have been better off waiting for it to come out on video to see. I still think the little child was the best part of that movie, heck in this case he might have been the best actor in the film considering the fact that everybody went so over the top in there performances.

There were several good scene's though and I think the good elements of this movie slightly out weight the not so good.

I think that it is worth seeing but it certainly didn't live up to the standards of the original.

Hotel Rwanda (2004)

One of the best

[9/10 · 11 January 2005]

Don Chedal Is a great actor and he has done some phenomenal movies but none of them compare to this film about a Rwandan hotel manager who sheltered more than twelve hundred people during the massacres that happened in 1994.

I'll admit that I knew nothing about this event in history other than the fact that it happened. This film was an eye opener, a powerful look at one of the most devastating events in the history of the world. A dark part of the history of the world made worse by the apathy of the rest of the world. And how those who were being needlessly slaughtered where protected only by there own determination to survive and by the help of a few great men who risked everything to fight an impossible battle.

This is a film that should be not only experienced but remembered, it is something that could change you and how you view the world. This is a film that sends a message to all of us. We cannot simply ignore these atrocities, we cannot put our political and diplomatic agendas above the lives of innocent men women and children. It sends the message that there are things that are worth fighting for and that there are some things worth dying for. It is a message that still has significance today.

National Treasure (2004)

Here come the Buffalo

[5/10 · 9 December 2004]

In the John Sayles book "Thinking in Pictures, the Making of Matewan" he has a segment when he's talking about the executives at the studios being afraid of long periods of no dialog, he then uses an example. "The Indians are waiting in an open plane, cut to a close up of the Indians brandishing there spears and lances, cut to the buffalo thundering towards them, cut back to the Indians. 'At this point somebody will inevitably say can't one of the indians say here come the buffalo? 'Good observation yellow deer your really on you toes today."

That was my main problem with this film, there were too many "here come the buffalo's" people just saying obvious thing after obvious thing. It was filled up with dialouge that you didn't need, I don't know maybe they feel that they need to spoon feed us everything so that we'll understand stuff that is right in front of us.

This film did have it entertaining elements although there were too many moments that we have seen in every other movie in the genre. And I still find it baffling that they could figure out all these clues that were supposed to have eluded people for hundreds of years by guessing and taking stabs in the dark.

Also, the whole idea that our founding father's had all of that treasure during the coarse of the revolutionary war and decided to hide it rather then try to use some of it to pay for the war and then hiding it.

And, of course two scientists and a woman that works for the national archives all of the sudden turn into stunt men when they need to.

Overall, not one of Jerry Brukheimer's better investment's. Maybe take your kids to see it because it's only rated PG but if your over the age of ten it will just seem too low brow.

The Insider (1999)

One of Michael Mann's Most powerful films

[9/10 · 9 December 2004]

Michael Mann is on of the most talented director's in the industry and one of the most consistent in the quality of his films.

This film is an in depth portrayal of the life of Jeffery Wigand (Russel Crow) who is trying to expose the secrets of a large cigarette company and how he risked everything to make sure that the people knew the truth.

Al Pacino, Russel Crow, Christopher Plummer, and the rest of the credited cast all did superb jobs at portraying there character's and maintaining the attention of the audience through a film that is nearly three hours of only talk.

Michael Mann again used powerful cinematic devices and dramatic lighting to give the film a unique look and feel. Mann is one of the most brilliant film maker's there are and it shined through in this film.

The screen writing was superb, it had a subtle brilliance that allowed me to just get sucked into the film and make me forget that I'm just watching actors.

This is one of the best films that I have ever seen. It deserves its place on the IMDb top 250 list, if anything it should be higher up.

Gods and Generals (2003)

Fantastic

[6/10 · 21 November 2004]

Some people have problem's with this movie, I'm not one of them. I'll be the first to admit that this is not as good of a movie as Gettysberg was but it is still phenomenal film-making.

Some people get scared off because the movie is four hours long but that really did not bother me, granted I do have a freakishly long attention span but this film easily held my attention throughout the entire run of the movie.

Robert Duval was a much better Robert E. Lee than Sheen was in Gettysberg and Stephen Lang managed to turn in another great performance, this time as the legendary Stonewall Jackson. Jeff Daniels returns as Col. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlin and gives a stunning performance. The only performance that I found flawed was that of Stonewall's wife, I found it to be over the top and slightly annoying but she had a very small part and it was rather inconsequential to the film.

I really enjoyed the authenticity throughout the film. It is rare to get a movie that is getting praise from a Christian radio station but I remember hearing about this one. I'll admit that I haven't had the chance to finish reading the book "Gods and Generals" but form what I did read it stayed very true to the book and also maintained very good historical accuracy.

This was a very well made film and I would recommend this to anyone who has even a slight interest in the Civil War.

Band of Brothers (2001)

One of the Greatest things ever put on film

[10/10 · 12 November 2004]

When I got thins mini-seris on DVD I had only seen one episode, I immediately put in the first of the DVD's and before I knew it I had watched the entire ten hour mini-seris in one day. It is just that good.

From beginning to end it is a fantastic journey that we witness that primarily follow's Dick Winter's and Easy company. Starting with there training and ending with the end of the war this mini-seris accomplishes what no feature film could in showing in depth the tribulation's that these men faced throughout the coarse of the year that Band of Brothers is supposed to cover.

It never slowes down, it never looses momentum and it continues to draw you in until you feel that you know the characters. The cinematography was great, it was filmed so everything looked a little lighter than most films. Also these guy's understood that camera movement has to be motivated by the scene to work. There was a lot of camera movement during the battle sequences that managed to make you feel like you were right in the middle of everything but it didn't go on forever and it wasn't excessive like a lot of movies we are getting nowadays.

The fact that this takes about ten hours to get through simply means that it gave them more time to get you to know the people being portrayed in the film, and learn about the events that they witnessed, this goes far beyond anything that I have ever seen in that perspective.

I very rarely comment about a title but this one warrant's it, this one of the best and most appropriate titles ever given to a film. "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers, for he that shed's his blood with me today will be my brother." That's what this entire mini was about, a few men that layed there lives on the line for the welfare of the world and so many that gave there lives in defense of an ideal, but in the end they fought for each other, the man next to him. I can never understand the terror of war, I can never understand what it is like to be in battle, but this gave us a glimpse, if only a slight glimpse of the friendship, of the brotherhood that went into fighting in such a conflict.

I'm not just giving a recommendation, I am asking everyone to take the time and watch this mini-seris. It is one of the greatest things ever put on film and I cannot stress enough how important this seems to be. See it, you will not be disappointed.

Mystic River (2003)

A Triumph

[9/10 · 10 November 2004]

This movie didn't get nearly enough attention at the Oscars. They got two awards for acting but they got bilked out of the best supporting actress award, and the best picture award if you ask me.

This movie was beautifully filmed and the performances were top notch. At time's I felt that Sean Penn had a little too much yelling and not quite enough actual acting but he definitely did deserve that Oscar. Tim Robbins gave one of his best performances ever in this film, you feel hunted just by watching this guy, it was an amazing performance that draws you in and won't let you go, you really believe him as this character and, like Sean Penn he deserved his Oscar. Kevin Bacon also gave a strong performance, and both Laura Linny and Marcia Gay Harden deserved the academy award far more than Renee Zelwigger did for Cold Mountain.

Clint Eastwood's direction was superb, everything in this movie was done so powerfully and yet so subtley that you feel like you are watching real life.

Clint Eastwood has a very unique approach to dealing with his actors, giving them more room to go with what they want to do then just what he want's. I still find it fascinating that two of the best director's of our time, Clint Eastwood and Micheal Mann can be the exact antithisis of each other in the way they run their sets and work with the people who are working for them.

I rarely devote a paragraph to a musical score but this time I think it is warranted. It was also composed by Clint Eastwood. It amazed me how incredibly well it fit the feel of the film, a little dark and gloomy, very subtle. It doesn't give you and uplifting bravora style of a musical score but something that is simply made to exentuat the ambiance of the film. Its rare to see a director compose the score to his film but this was just as good as any of the greats like Hans Zimmer, James Horner, or John Williams could have done.

It is easy to loose yourself in this film, it is easy to forget that you are in the theater, or now, sitting on the couch watching it. The writing, the acting, the set all seemed so real to me.

The 8.1 stars that this film has posted isn't a fluke, it is truly deserving of a high user rating, in fact I wish it was higher. This isn't just one of the best films of the year, this is one of the best films ever made. I would recommend this movie to anyone, anytime, anyplace. If you can't see the brilliance of this film you need to get your eyes checked.