Mean Girls (2004)

A Birthday Dedication to:

My friend, Katie

Katie is also abroad right now and it's actually her birthday today so I thought it was best to do her all time favorite film! Which also happens to be a cultural classic and for good reason!

Here is a film that pushes limits with its humor while also finding moments that are actually very meaningful. We have all been there. We all,at some point, will or have already navigated the halls of high school, and as this film so rightly points out...it's a jungle. Yet as Cady walks through this film finding herself we find some of the most quoted lines of our decade...

"Boo you whore." "You can't just ask people why they're white!" "He is almost too gay to function.""SHE DOESN'T EVEN GO HERE!""The limit does not exist!"...and as you all know... the list goes on. You can barely go five minutes into a conversation without someone quoting this movie and it is because of the gritty humanism it achieves. Tina Fey pulls out all the things we are thinking and willingly places it on screen for our enjoyment. And she is so very right: we love it!

Not to mention it hearkens you back to some of the other teen dramas. Things like The Breakfast Club or 10 Things I Hate About You, that gave voices to the teens of the 80's and 90's. Mean Girls is the voice of our teen years and for that it will always be special to us. 

In addition, its fun to see Rachel McAdams at the beginning of her career. And, it really makes you hope that Lindsay Lohan will get her life together. But perhaps most importantly it does teach a lesson of acceptance and understanding that transcends its high school setting.

Overall: I don't need to tell you this...but this film is hysterical and heartwarming. While also showing a keen understanding of the struggles of being a teen or rather a person in general.  Happy Birthday Katie! Happy Watching! You Go Glen Coco!

Black Beauty (1994)

A Birthday Dedication to: 

My Friend, Kevin

One of my best college friends is abroad right now...so for his birthday I thought I would review his  favorite childhood movie. 

I remember finding this film extremely boring as a child, so when I heard him say it was his favorite film I was a little baffled. But as I sat on my three hour train ride back home for Thanksgiving I figured what is the harm? If I fall asleep that's alright...If I am pleasantly surprised that is even better. And you know...I think I was surprised.

Yes the dialogue is amateurish and some of the content is pretty bleak for a kids film but this film is actually visually very appealing. There is something quite pleasant about being immersed in pastoral England watching beautiful horses run free. Especially because the color is so much more vibrant compared to today's films. We seem to have fallen into a dark aesthetic nowadays and it was refreshing to watch something that was genuinely warm at times. 

In addition, it was shot very well. The personification of the horses is achieved mostly through framing. Often finding their very giving eyes at the center of a shot, it really made you feel connected to this protagonist regardless of the species gap. 

Also the music by Danny Elfman is beautiful and sweeping truly giving life to this horse beyond the dialogue. 

A couple other things I was entertained by: 1.) Black Beauty has a Scottish accent...alright I am down 2.) Yes if you squint you can see a very young Sean Bean and David Thewlis ...so Boromir and Lupin made it into a film together.

Overall: This is a children's movie that I think I got more out of as an adult. No it is by no means a great film, but you know for an hour and twenty minutes it is actually quite touching. Happy Birthday, Kevin! And Happy Watching! ;)

Midnight in Paris (2011)

Nominee

There is nothing better than Woody Allen taking the very intellectualism he himself clearly loves and shamelessly presenting it with satirical whimsy. Now place that within the artistic and literary rich history of Paris, and you have created genius.

The film starts with Gil Pender (Owen Wilson) and his fiancee, Inez (Rachel McAdams) traveling in Paris with her parents. Pender is a Hollywood screenwriter with a longing to pen something more substantial, while Inez looks for fulfillment through either material wealth, or feigning interest in art but only from the tourist necessity.When this ill suited couple run into Inez's old professor, the rift begins to grow and while Inez goes out dancing, Pender goes for a walk. Yet as the bell tolls midnight, Wilson is picked up by an 1920's Peugeot and taken back to the modernist period, meeting the likes of Getrude Stein, Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Dali, and Picasso...to name a few. These midnight encounters continue over a number of nights, and as the film progresses Pender discovers that although the allure of the past is inviting, it is best to create progress in the present.

Pender is every bit the classic deadpan Allen protagonist, a bit down on his luck and starved for meaning, yet he is completely understated in presentation and in reaction to his circumstance. Owen Wilson delivers this character effortlessly, making it that much more enjoyable to witness the fantastical story.

Speaking of which...the premise of this movie could not be more inviting. There is nothing more fun than bearing witness to the resurrection of the great thinkers of our time. And Woody Allen's screenplay brought them to us in a way that had to win the Oscar. 

I do have two complaints: 1.) The marketing was incredibly wrong. (SURPRISE) They made it look like an Owen Wilson/Rachel McAdams chick flick...I am sure that crowd was disappointed and 2.) The opening cityscape shots drag, but I am impatient.

Overall: This is Woody Allen at his best. Give me subdued understated dialogue within ridiculous circumstance or give me death! Not to mention I love a good cultural or historical reference and this film was brimming with them. Definitely a good time. Happy Watching!

Tree of Life (2011)

Nominee

It has been an unforgivably long time since I last posted, but what a breathtaking film to restart on. 

This was an incredibly humbling experience. So much so that I am not certain I am qualified to critique it. However, it must be discussed for that is its main purpose: to commence a conversation on all things. This film strives to reach the farthest corners of our existence throughout time and space, from the magnificent to the minut it is all interconnected to comprise the human experience.  Yet how is it that experience comes to be? How is growth induced? 

All the years of history surmount to whatever we make of it in our everyday lives. This is shown to us both by entrancing images of the world around us, and by beautiful or heart-retching moments brought to us by the family we follow throughout the narrative.  A family brought to life by Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain, who each embody the opposing forces of life: the way of nature and the way of grace. Their performances are crucial and they deliver us the foundation of this story: the act of nurturing, the beginning of growth. The children in this film exude a level of acting maturity not even accessible to some well beyond their years, their strikingly honest performances are influential. 

But perhaps the cinematography is even more notable in this case. There is no frame in this film that is not absolutely stunning. Whether it be a revealing angle or a saturation of color the defamiliarization with the ordinary is achieved in ways that it has never been seen before. In addition, I cannot even begin to fathom what the editing process was like, the visual associations are vibrant and true, whilst also being elegant and precise. All of this comes down to Terrence Malick. A director who had a vision and dared to push the limits of film making resulting in a rewarding experience for all who chose to engage in it. 

Overall: This is one of those films that comes by every decade or so and refreshes what can be done. And ,although, it may seem completely inaccessible at times, remember it is depicting a shared knowledge of beauty and experience. If I haven't made it clear yet. I believe it is well worth the watch. Happy Viewing!

The Conversation (1974)

Nominee

In this film there are two very specific components that standout. The way the thematics are integrated into the visuals of the film, and then just the sound editing in general.

Harry Caul, is a professional surveillance personnel, who is caught in a world of paranoia due to his inability to perceive what is reality. He is then placed into a specific job where he hears a conversation and knows that something is amiss, but what he hears and what is actually happening is always being questioned. I literally said out loud a number of times: What is going on? And that is not due to any fault of the story but is implemented quite intentionally and with great skill. Frances Ford Coppola lets us see just the right amount in order to keep us hanging on and then turns us in another direction. This is because the theme of the film is perception and film itself is a medium of perception. Between directing, cinematography, editing and sound a film makes us see, associate, and hear only what we are given and when it is done at an intricate level we can be purposefully misled. A job very well executed in this case.

Specifically in the sound editing. Through repetition and manipulation we are haunted by the recurrence of certain sounds and songs, but every time they are reintroduced into the narration they are given new meanings and urgency. This is truly the driving force of the suspense and excellent in composition.

If I have something to say it was (surprise!) the beginning was slow, almost to the point of losing my attention. However the ending makes up that ground.

Overall: This film is a tribute to the art of film making itself, showing its convolution and its influence on our understanding of a story. Make it through the first half and you will be rewarded. Happy Watching!

The Fighter (2010)

Nominee

This is a film that reminds us what acting is really about. It is not just standing on screen reciting lines, it is not just being a pretty face for the media and then putting up half hearted performances. Acting is the ability to step inside another person and find the humanity that connects us all. A good actor not only shows us a person but makes us understand that person, perhaps even develop empathy for them. Having a background in theater has given me very high expectations for the craft, and often it is not met, so when my expectations are surpassed I know respects are due.

The story to begin with is the classic American underdog story. Micky Ward (Wahlberg), is a beaten down boxer from a small impoverished town in Massachusetts, who wants to be loyal to his family but is also burdened by them. Between his brother Dicky's (Bale) addiction to cocaine, and his mother's (Leo) inability to deal with the truth, it is Micky that gets lost, until he meets Charlene (Adams).

These are dynamic people that were carefully and skillfully scripted into a film. It was then in the hands of the actors and they delivered. These characters are all down on their luck and looking for some way to find normalcy in their lives. That was something that was never said or explicitly shown, so where did I obtain that perspective? The actors. Amy Adams and Melissa Leo are incredibly engaging in their parts, both loving but products of their environments these women are fierce because they have to be. Also Christian Bale is an amazing physical actor he dedicates his whole body to a role, and in this film we aren't watching Christian Bale, we are watching Dicky and that is so important. Lastly, Mark Wahlberg, gives us a more subtle side to his craft, he is not the hard hitting Bostonian here, he is a man in conflict. The ensemble in general to, from Dicky's son to the pack of sisters no one misses a beat.

I would be amiss if I ended without a nod to the technical aspects as well. Cinematography was brilliant with their use of commercial cameras versus production models. This separated the real world from inside the ring elegantly. Also sound editing for fight scenes is always important, they brought the chaos more than anything else.

Overall: Unforgettable performances, with sharp technical aspects. This was my second time watching and my opinion remains unchanged. That is a great movie. Happy Watching!

The Alamo (1960)

Nominee

Sorry I have been slacking a little on posting! In the lull of summer I find myself either too busy or too lazy but I hope to make up a little ground here today. I watched this film about a week ago and although I do love John Wayne, this one fell short for me. But it provides me an opportunity to discuss a topic that I throw around a lot in these posts, namely pacing. I mention this concept a lot but it has become clear to me that I have not expressed the components that make make up the term. 

Pacing is driven by two sources: the narration, namely the screenplay, and the editing, in particularly how long we linger on a frame before moving on to the next image. These two things, of course, work best when they are closely proportioned to one another. If something is not emphasised in the script than bring it out visually with an establishing shot. If you can't show it have someone say it well in the script without laying it out to blatantly. When this is done right most movies find a rhythm and we are able to witness a story through dialogue and imagery. My problem? I hate when the rhythm is slow. This is very much a personal preference, but when a film is compromised of long shots and dense unconcealed conversations, it loses my attention, and that is very much what happened here.

Between long vast repetitive shots of landscapes and a lot of dialogue revolving around characters with existential crises especially with discussions of faith, slavery, and death in toe, this movie felt like more of a lecture than anything else. This trickled into the narrative structure as well. A lot of the action felt disconnected and at times superfluous.  I will say, however, that there was some endearing characterizations. John Wayne's Davy Crockett brought to life a historical figure with vibrancy. Also Richard Widmark and Lawrence Harvey played nicely against each other presenting a clear battle in philosophy.

Overall: It was just too slow for my taste. Not with out its merits, but it felt like a good idea without the flawless execution. Perhaps go watch a different John Wayne classic.

From a Distance With My Most Heartfelt Condolences

Although I am over half a country away with no personal connection to the horrific events so recently surrounding Aurora, Colorado I feel deeply connected to this atrocity. No, I cannot imagine that my grief surmounts to anything compared to those of the victim's families but I could not let this go by with out adding my voice to the many now reaching out in support, and also sharing my perspective to the dialogue of the aftermath.

When one goes to the theater you look to engage in an hour or two of escapism. Slipping into an alternative world, you entrust your perceptions to the vision of the filmmakers and your safety to those around you. There is an unspoken pact that is enacted when engaging in this shared experience and that pact was unforgivably violated by a man who did not have the aptitude to decipher reality from fiction. My heart goes out to those movie goers, the tragedy of their death lies in their innocence and vulnerability and it is an event I will not soon forget.

As a result of any act of tremendous loss we have seen that many begin to look for a motivation for the killers actions. In this case it has brought to light a certain discussion that I find particularly enraging. Some have stated that violence in the film industry has gotten out of hand and is corrupting the minds of the masses. This idea is not only absurd but also directly insulting to the memory of the victims. We, as consumers of this medium, are not the mindless individuals this theory insinuates. We are critical, analytical beings capable of finding a film enthralling without it pervading our every notion thereafter. Yes there are those who are incapable of separating their world from the one on the screen, but they are few in number. So people who are criticizing the content of The Dark Knight Rises I ask you this: Would you have us sacrifice expression out of fear? Should we live in paranoia that caters to the whims of the insane? I say no. Every film is a conversation that gives us another shot at a greater public truth and that should not be lost to the will of people like James Holmes. The victims were there to see it, they supported the film, and they were not so impressionable that they came armed. Let us not insult their memory by saying the film was the source. A person was the source, and although nothing can pay for the lives he took, he will be brought to justice. Let us not give him anymore influence over us and our ability to live, he does not deserve that right.

Remembering 6/20/12 Aurora, CO
Pam G

My Left Foot (1989)

Nominee

Bio pics are without a doubt very hit or miss mostly just because they are easy. You pick a person with an inspirational story and you will have the whole audience sobbing by the end. Also from a narrative stand point there is no real room for creativity, this is someones life you don't get to make the majority of it up. However, with this skepticism for the genre planted in me it makes it that much more impressive when I come out liking one. Here I am not without some qualms but for the most part this is a bio pic that takes risk, and therein lies achievement.

For example the convention would be to take one person and simply depict their obstacles and then show how that person overcame them. I think what this film does well is that it shows the obstacles but it does not go for the easy answer of success, it seems to shed light on failure as well making the movie less predictable in nature. Also the screenplay is truly the impetus of this whole film, there are none of the over done inspirational speeches that feel awkward and out of place in films about real people. Instead we have many specific moments that are given to us through everyday dialogue. That makes this whole story come down to a personal level.

In addition, the acting highlights the imperfections of each character which makes them all the more attainable to our sympathies. Daniel Day Lewis does an impeccable job committing his whole body to this role of Christy Brown, an artist and writer with cerebral palsy. You may say its easy to get an Oscar playing someone with a disability...well yes that's true but it's not easy to do and not easy to do well. Also the mother, played by Brenda Fricker, does a superb job of showing a realistic but hopeful woman who is able to raise those around her to their best.  

Some problems still exist namely, the soundtrack and the ending. I am waiting for the day that I watch an 80's film and I sit through the whole thing without cringing at the sound of poorly conceived music, but like I said I am still waiting, so this film did not end that mission.

Also the ending seemed to forget the whole focus of this film. This film was about Christy Brown in the context of his family, I feel like the end tried to make it out to be a romance driven story. It just seemed irrelevant in the scope of the movie.

Overall: A solid watch with some unforgettable character work, it wrapped up poorly and it is not a feast for the ears, but the message and the access to it is there. Also it is a great story about a remarkable life. Happy Watching!

The Piano (1993)

Nominee

Movies, in general, are never a predictable experience because the art form is not complete until it has been consumed by an audience. The problem with an audience is it is comprised of individuals, none of whom completely share the same set of memories or morals. Throw in something as personal as sex, and you have yourself a personal moment you are now sharing with a massive group....Where am I going with this? It is up to the individual to determine what to them is art and what is just blatant sex to serve a separate purpose. Where is the line? Well I can't speak for yours but here embodied in this movie is mine, it pushes a limit without pushing an inch past it, impressive to see.  

This movie presents sexuality to serve the purpose of narration and tell the story of human carnal attraction through the notion of passion. And because every ounce of this story is committed to the translation of that purpose I am willing to consign the eroticism not to shock value or mere pornography but to something deeply conversing with the human experience. We see this through the development of character and place, the cinematography and the music. The care in every aspect is there, making it something notable in execution and creditable in content.

The characters are all people on the edge, be it literally on the map or a place between civilization and survival. Ada, a mute piano player,  and her daughter, Flora, are sent to New Zealand when Ada's father sells her in marriage to Allistar Stewart. While there her path crosses with George Baines another Englishman who has become integrated into the lifestyles of the natives. Passions cross and savagery confronts civility while music leads to instinct.  These characters and the people playing them are dynamic. Holly Hunter as Ada somehow lets us see a strong willed woman without a voice, and Anna Paquin who plays Flora, gives us a little girl still trying to discover right and wrong in a world of conflict. These performances are unforgettable.

Then there is the music and cinematography that give us a visual and auditory contrast. This world is presented as a fairytale, with coloring in the music and saturation of the frames. The outside world is cold and dark, while any scene where human contact ensues is full of warmth. It is through love and music that Ada finds belonging in this story, and we are not given that through dialogue, we see it and hear it.

Overall: This movie is beautifully done, and the attention found here is what makes movie making so incredibly dynamic. The content is at times very forward but it is not given in frivolity but purpose. I think this film is worth the watch but this is of course my line. Happy Watching.

Broadcast News (1987)

Nominee

Here is a movie that is not quite Network (1976) and not quite an awful romanitc comedy. So what is it? Well it is solid, it tries to hard to be somethings but it succeeds effortlessly at others.

In the characters, the actors and the brief endearing moments of wit and personal encounters we are given a movie that seems so at ease with its content. William Hurt, Holly Hunter, and Albert Brooks all give clean perfomances of the real people behind the news. We have the pretty faced not to bright anchor, Tom,  the bright and obsessive producer, Jane, and her best friend Aaron, who cannot be an anchor but knows how to write the news. The three find each other in the double context of work and personal life, and in these two settings of interaction we find some real and funny moments. When watching these characters interact you almost forget you're watching a movie.

However where I do find some fault is its attempt to show the inner working of the news station. It tries to be ground breaking in a way its just not. People getting fires, the intergrity of work vs. the need for viewership. It's already been done and its been done better. Not that I didn't enjoy some of the sequences, watching a lot of the techinical process of a newsroom was fun, but the themes the movie was pushing just wasn't notable.

Also this is no fault of the movie itself but rather the 80's. I don't know what they were doing back then but their soundtracks and shooting styles usually fall flat for me.

Lastly, Jack Nicholson is in this movie in a very small role which I though was strange. Also Disney/Pixar fans! A fun game: close your eyes and listen...you will hear Jessie the Yodeling Cowgirl, Elastagirl, and Marlin. This was very distracting for me...in a good way!

Overall: This is not the great ethical commentary that it thinks it is, but what it is instead is a solid film about love and friendship in a chaotic context. If I did stars I would give it a 3.5/5...perhaps not earth shattering but a good watch. 

Gladiator (2000): HAPPY 50TH POST!!

Academy Award Winner

I cannot believe I am at 50 posts! Just a little update on the whole; I am now 162 movies in with 247 to go to and rapidly approaching halfway, and in case you were wondering I update my status on my original post: The Quest , so if you want to keep track of my progress it is there. Thanks for your readership, I have a great time writing, and I hope you enjoy reading :)

Now, I know I have discussed the Epic before and I know I have also talked about straight up entertainment value. Here is an example of the collision of these two motives of movie making. Is it perfect? No. Is it entertaining and epic? Yes. Then throw in ancient Roman society with it's strength but fragile inner structure and you have yourself a backdrop. Lastly, add the ultimate hero, a man who has been beaten down but cannot be beaten and you have yourself a movie worth making, but more importantly worth watching.

This story may not be historically accurate but it's victory lies in capturing a culture not specifics. It's attention is paid to the customs and traditions that is ancient Rome; the wars for the empire, the constant conflict of empire vs. democracy, and  the gladiator fights all encompass the essence of the time through narrative. Yet we are also given Rome through a visual recreation that is achieved most successfully. They have rebuilt the Colosseum, they have clad the gladiators in intricate armor, they show the luxury of the emperor and for all of this we are visually committed to this film.

So our backdrop and it's execution are compelling, but now the other main player in this movie's success is Maximus. The unwilling but rightful ruler of Rome, father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife, and he will have his vengeance in this life or the next. (Sorry I couldn't really help it)  What makes this character so compelling is he is not complex, he is a man with a single purpose, and that is the only reason he is alive. He will endure so that he may die, but not until he has killed the emperor of Rome. Yet, to have a great hero you must have a villain of equal proportions. As much as we love Maximus we must hate Commodus. Russell Crowe successfully wins our admiration and Joaquin Phoenix our disdain.

The other characters in this story play their parts, and we are given a story of a lifetime, complete with the epic battles required from a film entitled Gladiator. Also the score is awesome, swelling and well...EPIC!

I do have one qualm but it is an unavoidable bi product of all action films. Action films have a tendency to have one theme and beat you over the head with it. Here it is death, and we are clobbered by it, you cannot go five minutes without someone saying something about shadows and dust...but it is typical of the genre so I will let it pass.

Overall: You want to know Rome? Skip Three Coins in the Fountain (1954), and instead follow Maximus through his lifetime. You won't regret it and if you do...well don't worry your regrets will follow you into death for all eternity. (Reference to tag line: check) But in all seriousness you won't regret it, it's not possible. Happy Watching!



Three Coins in the Fountain (1954)

Nominee

Whelp, here we have a movie that encompasses a travel advertisement and a B version of Roman Holiday, and it only really succeeds at one. Lets just say I really want to see Rome for myself after this film because I want to make sure it is more exciting live than it is stagnant on the screen.

We have an hour and forty minutes total. The first hour shows areal shots of Italy which apparently in 1954 warranted a win for best cinematography. But lets face it how hard is it really to get beautiful shots of...Italy?...I think I rest my case, nothing particularly notable or impressive here.

The last forty minutes are poorly developed love plots with boring characters, save perhaps Miss Frances, played by Dorothy McGuire who presents the only memorable scene in the entire movie. Yes six double scotches later we have some entertainment in this movie from Miss Frances.  However everyone else could easily have been replaced by anyone, there is no real character work needed.

In addition, what little plot there is was not even good. Three American women try to find love in Italy after throwing TWO coins in the fountain. That's right readers, there aren't even three coins in the fountain...even the title gives us expectations it doesn't meet. Also, the ending is the most heinous thing I have ever watched. If you are looking  for the definition of contrived watch the last three minutes of this movie.

Overall: I will acknowledge this may be in part a generational gap, but if I would liken this movie to something in modern media it would be the Bachelorette. We are watching attractive people doing fun things in beautiful places, but it has no actual substance. I would say in lieu of watching this movie book a trip to Rome. It may be way more expensive but incredibly more worthwhile.

In Bruges (2008)

This post is in strict dedication to a friend, namely Caleb Bowers. And it is because of him that I will take this opportunity to state the beauty of film is that it is technically one product but what makes it an active experience is that that one product can reach different people in so many varying ways.

I liked a lot of things about this film. So I will start there.

The premise: We have an aged hit man and a novice who are at impasses in their lives, they are frozen in time, as is the location they are sent to inhabit by their boss while awaiting their next assignment. So here we have characters, and even a space that must negotiate an identity crisis. This is an intriguing story.

The cinematography: Many of the chosen angles were intricate and reminded the viewer of our viewership. We were witnesses to this story, not participants, but that was still a role we had to fill and that role was given to us by the camera making us active in our watching.

The setting: In Bruges, presents a visually rich backdrop with cultural vibrancy that has fallen into history. Its certainly a crossroad of a location and strongly mirrors much of the inner conflict of the given characters. Leading to my next point...

The characters and the actors portraying them are the strongest aspect of the film. Colin Farrell plays his part with great empathy. His whole character embodies youth and the struggles of the innocent, or at very least those perceived to be so. Brendan Gleeson and Ralph Fiennes play the men on the other side, they have moved on from youth and have found survival in their own moral systems. Which ironically bring their deaths as well.

I also appreciated many of the themes touched on throughout: human intimacy, perception, morality, repentance...all strong motivations to tell a story.

This whole thing comes with a big caveat, and my most humble apologies to Mr. Bowers. I did not like the humor...I only found a few parts actually funny, but for the most part I felt it was...well...stupid... and formulaic. Jokes about midget suicide and fat people just aren't really my style and you can't really claim it's dry or dark humor. Those styles take things you wouldn't have found funny otherwise and surprise you with their humor. Yet as I already said it was formulaic so....we weren't surprised. Literally, a character would say something and then you would wait ten minutes and it would come up again later without fail. Repetition is a great weapon of humor. However when over used it can also be it's downfall especially when it is an attempt at being dry. Also expletives become tiresome, as does watching bored people for two hours.

Overall: There are many things I liked about this film, but it lost me at the jokes, and some what in the pacing. HOWEVER, the whole point of the blog is exploration of opinions! I can appreciate that to someone  else this may resonate better than it did with me. In fact I know it does. So give it a watch, perhaps you have a different sense of humor than I do.

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Academy Award Winner

It is not often that I find a movie absolutely visually intoxicating whilst also being intricately woven into an interesting narrative structure. This film resoundingly succeeds at both while also brutally imposing the realism of life onto to the viewer. And yet this is realism with hope as it's perpetrator, unlike most films that think happiness must be sacrificed for truth.

We are given a boy, Jamal Malik, from the slums who experiences seemingly endless loss and still is motivated to find his true love, Latika, at any cost.  This film sweeps the span of a lifetime effortlessly and reminds the viewer of the struggle to survive. The narration weaves the past with the the present allowing us to see the characters grow on an intimate level, making their emotions all the more real to us. Their frustrations, their losses, and their dreams become ours. This is seen in the style of the film in an unforgettable fashion.

The flashbacks are presented in a way that evokes a dream-like state. The saturation of color, the stilted motions and pacing, the canted angles that impose a certain "peering" angle. We see the memories as we would see one of our own, not clear and not perfect but with a certain vibrancy for the details we do remember. It is beautiful, and a strong tool of story telling.

I would also be in the wrong if I wrapped this post with mentioning the expertly composed and complied soundtrack. The music speaks directly with the narrative adding another level of film viewing to be submersed in.

If I have one problem with the film it is the fleeting moments of troublesome dialogue. some discussions of "destiny" feel a little too contrived and forced. However because of this films dedication to it's theme of hope I am able to forgive the film as a whole.

Overall: This film is a testament to the greatness of collaborative work. Bollywood and Hollywood have both put in their finest contributions, and it is phenomenal.  And I must say it's refreshing to have a happy ending, albeit it a bittersweet one. Jai Ho, and Happy Watching!

L.A. Confidential (1997)

Nominee

This is a very cool movie that converses intimately with its time period, its location, and the flaws of the justice system it illuminates while also paying homage to the film noir of the past.

Set in L.A. during the 1950's we are submerged into a mess of glamour and what lies slightly lower than skin deep: corruption. A restaurant massacre brings to light the injustices of the system, a system where sex, drugs and violence are the currency to power. This is a film with a lot of potential but certainly has the risk of being done poorly. Yet this film reaches success through admiral acting, flawless pacing, and attention to shooting and editing that gives the viewer multiple layers of access.

I don't really feel I have to go into to much depth with the members of the cast. Although it is fun to see many of these now veterans of the screen at the beginning of their careers. Guy Pearce and Russell Crowe play their character foil against each other well. They embody two sides of the system, both of which are ultimately needed to solve the case. It's good cop/bad cop at it's finest. Kevin Spacey and Danny Devito both play strong characterizations as they are products of the media component of L.A. And Kim Basinger gives us a strong performance as woman who is just trying to get by in a world where she is helpless.  All of these were commendable efforts.

The pacing of the narration was impeccable. Moving with realistic haste whilst also making sure the audience was not lost in the shambles of details it was engaging in. However it also left some of the responsibility to the audience without neglecting them. A well done execution of a script.

Lastly, The shooting and editing worked closely with each other making the movie interesting to watch.  Using point of view shots and graphic matches, we were allowed into the minds of the characters and then released while remaining rooted in the reality of the story.

Overall: This is a sharp murder mystery spiced with Hollywood glamour and social commentary. I found it an enjoyable watch that I never would have seen without doing this quest. Happy Watching!

Braveheart (1995)

Academy Award Winner

If you are Scottish or just love yourself some haggis read this:

This is a film that swells with wailing bagpipes, epic battles, and lots of kilts. You will be shouting "Alba gu Brath!" or FREEEEEDOM!!!!! for days involuntarily. (Warning: stay away from public spaces)

If you are not Scottish start here:

This is a very overdone movie that just has way too much Mel Gibson all over it. He is not Orson Welles, he does not get to produce, director and star in a film unless he is good at it.  As a director he does not give us anything. The shots all fall flat to me, I see nothing in them of particular note beyond the fact that there is way too much slow motion. There are other ways, more artful and innovative ones at that,  to give emphasis than to slow everything down, and you need to use them especially in a movie that is three hours long.

His performance as a leading actor also leaves something to be desired. You can tell the script was attempting to depict a man with many faces. A warrior, a lover, a country man, a savage. But Gibson's William Wallace only seems capable of saying everything at one level of intensity. I feel we lost what could have been a complex, dynamic character to a mediocre performance.

The other actors were okay. There was nothing exceptional about the cinematography or the editing. I will mention that I enjoyed the score, but what can I say, I have Scottish and Irish blood in me.

What bothers me the most is the premise itself is a good story. It's the small rising against impossible odds for something they have never had: freedom. That is a great story, and when placed in a historical setting such as this one it has great potential as a period piece. It just was not executed in a way that was conducive to what it ultimately could have been.

Overall: Yes this movie is able to draw out pride in my heritage so it is not without the power to elicit emotion. However it could have been so much more than that had it not been for Mel Gibson. Perhaps someone should try it again sometime.

Ninotchka (1939)

Nominee

I have been blindsided.... This looked like a film that was going to be another run of the mill 1930's romance. We will have the glamour shots of Greta, the smooth talking of Melvin, and two hours of dated innocence leading to some very sappy ending. Well yeah that was there but sitting beneath this very tidy package of a classic Hollywood film....lied something else.

This film is about a Bolshevik woman who ends up in the fun loving atmosphere of Paris. As you may be able to tell from this statement alone...this film has really hysterical moments. I mean the blatant capitalist propaganda must have been funny back then because they absolutely believed it to be true. Now the same things are funny because of their utter ridiculous and blatant execution regardless of your feelings on the subject.  They even put in a minor poke at Nazism (even the Soviets don't like the Nazis), and the general depiction of the Soviets is just so over the top that I am not even sure they could make this film today. (Not without a Sacha Baton Cohen level of political incorrectness).

That in general really sold this as an entertaining watch for me. The actors all do a respectable job, its all done in invisible style so nothing to say there, and the only qualm I will mention is Ninotchka's character transition is almost completely not motivated but that is part of what makes it so funny to a modern audience.

Overall: This is a hidden piece of history that results in some moments of real hilarity. Yes it also has the schmaltzy love plot but the humor makes up in the originality department. Happy Watching Comrade!

Gosford Park (2001)

Nominee

There is something inherently fun about British people doing very British things. And if you round up the best of them and they do the best of British activities, well its great sport. Here we have an incredible ensemble cast that keeps reminding that you should watch Harry Potter at some point this summer. With names like Michael Gambon, Maggie Smith, and Helen Mirren gracing the cast there are spot on character performances that create this world of duality.

The main focus of this film is the structure of this social system. There are the servants who stand on the sidelines of the rich accessing this world through the whims of those they serve. Then there are the rich who live in a world of artificial pleasantries and only gain the real motives of their relatives through their gossiping servants. This of course leads to the ultimate problem...murder.

This story succeeds in discussing morality and the varying measures we go through to maintain loyalty, or rather relationships. It is in the conclusion that we access what the ultimate message is, that it is love that motivates the actions of some but because of this flawed system murder is the culmination of this emotion.

The shooting is clean, and the editing allows us to foreshadow the end. Also the score, which I haven't discussed with a movie in a while, is notably adequate at setting the mood throughout the film.

I did have one problem with the film, there are so many characters that at times it is hard to keep track of them. You can only keep track of so many bit characters and side plots. I am not entirely sure that some of them actually did anything for this story.

Overall: This is a solid watch. It's a who done it that seeks to expose a flaw in socioeconomic gaps.  I liked it but I will state it is hard to keep track of some of the characters. However they are all British so listening to them talk makes it forgivable.  Happy Watching! 

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Nominee

This is long over due and it is more than a pleasure for me to get to write about a Quentin Tarantino film. I love this man because of his willingness to push limits in the areas of the extreme and the mundane. His films constantly contrast everyday situations with extraordinary circumstances. Yet he has fun while doing it...and it is because of that that we enjoy his films. We like them because he likes them and it is so utterly apparent.

This one specifically is one of my favorites. Tarantino decided to take history into his own hands and end World War II like any self respecting film nerd would have: in complete and utter destruction by the hands of Jews in a movie theater. Yet there are the other elements that make this so classically Quentin. The over the top end sequences, the western homages through out the film, the witty dialogue that only he can pull off, the pacing, its all there and it is all so incredibly engrossing.

 The characters for one are so bizarre and compelling at the same time. This may be one of Brad Pitt's greatest roles as Aldo the Apache. He presents his lines with great characterization which makes them so quotable. While Colonel Landa, who landed an Oscar for his efforts, is so incredibly strange and irritating that he becomes one of the most memorable characters in Tarantino's work. And of course Shoshana, who ultimately brings the demise of everyone, is the one who gets the last laugh.

Also the shooting is notable here, and is an impetus of Quentin Tarantino's obsession with creating contrast. If the characters are being subtle then the shooting will be extreme. Often he places us in the minds of the characters with specifically chosen angles that enable us into comprehend his purpose.  Also there is always that areal shot above the rooms that he loves to establish a space with. He can see different ways of breaking film conventions and making it work.

Lastly, this is both a note for those of you who have not seen it and a point of why this film is awesome. It is extremely gorey at times, but it is a film about killing Nazis so as a viewer we kinda want it to be that way.

Overall:  I love this director. I love this film. I want you to go watch this film...oblidge me. Happy Watching.

The Avengers (2012)

I finally got around to seeing this and I found out I should have gone sooner....I mean you would have to seriously be trying in order to mess this film up....and here they didn't, they got it all pretty much right.

1.) The premise: You have a team of super heros each with vaious talents (and character flaws) attempting to place ego aside and band together to save the world from a reign of terror by an angry god and aliens.

2.) The cast: This film was secretly made for women...I mean look at this cast. COME ON...plus Samuel L. Jackson is so awesome... he makes everyone say his middle initial.

3.) The characters: So Ironman and The Hulk steal most of the jokes but honestly you cannot help but love all of them. From Captain America's idealism to Ironman's skeptism we cover all the bases.

4.) The music: EPIC!

5.) The effects: Stunning.

6.) The possibility of a sequel: So I know I can give them all my money again!

7.)America F*ck Yeah: So much discussion of freedom and the ultimate protection of NYC. The patriot in me was content.

I have one critique really and that is the dialouge...however the only action film I have seen with good dialogue is The Dark Knight...and some of it in this film is pretty good...so I let it fly.

Overall: Go see it....If you don't like it... go find your soul.

Traffic (2000)

Nominee

Here we have a movie that really is not intricate enough to be interesting or simple/poetic enough to be poignant. It walked the center line and for me it came up empty for its efforts.  I really think this whole movie can be summed up in a sentence: This is a story about drugs in three different contexts.

With the drug industry there is inherent complexity, however this film seemed to overstate the obvious and understate portions of the narration that needed to be accentuated. For instance, in the Mexico Plot line I found myself sometimes clinging to small scraps of previous information and feeling at a loss for what was going on at times. If the narration had spent more time exploring this system I would have been more grounded in the content.  Yet when we returned to the DC/Ohio plot lines I felt entirely annoyed up the hippie hoopla that kept ensuing, and the amount of time they spent on it.  I never felt that there was a true confrontation of the father and daughter, and although I am sure they thought they were being groundbreaking, all I could think of was "Where are the emotions?". There was some realism lacking in that whole section, and to much lesson teaching.   The only story I enjoyed was Catherine Zeta-Jone's plot line because I felt it was the only one where I was surprised by the turn of events. I did not see her character developing the way it did and it provided a nice revelation.

So I didn't like the story. However I can give this film a nod in how it was put together. The editing and cinematography completely overpower the narration. This is a problem in and of itself because when you put two mediocre things next to each other they remain compatible. When you put something phenomenal against something mediocre? The contradiction is distracting. Yet the saturation choices were visually interesting, although I must admit bothersome at times when they were inconsistent.  The editing, on the other hand, was the best component of the film, creating the seamless transitions between worlds that realized the interconnectivity of the stories.

Overall: The story was not as deep as it was being treated, and because of that I ended up wishing that this artisitc vision went with a different story. I felt like there are better versions of this film, like Babel (2006), or perhaps Crash (2005). For me this is a film that can be looked over.

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

AFI Top 100: 72

Nominee

What can anyone say about a movie that has a 9.2 approval rating on IMDB? And yet somebody explain to me how this triumph of Hollywood film storytelling failed to pull its weight at the box office? I suppose like many of the great creative contributors of our history it was appreciated after its time. So what is it that makes this movie work? A story that is guided by hope and truth...and some Morgan Freeman narration.

What we have here is a man, Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins), who has been beaten down in so many aspects of his life and is able to transcend through patience, intelligence, and focus. While doing his stint in Shawshank, he befriends Red (Morgan Freeman), also known as the man who knows how to get things. This friendship along with Andy's own ability to manipulate his situation gives him his final redemption.

This film is done through a very classical style of storytelling. It's true homage to it's content allows the viewer to become engrossed in all the details. And it is in the culmination of these details that this story achieves an effective success.

The actors give us the brilliantly subtle performances allowing us to root for them or hate them. Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman are as solid as always, they give the performances we expect. I won't lie if I could pick one person to narrate my life it would probably be Morgan Freeman or James Earl Jones.

Also, like I said, this is done in the classic style, (i.e. invisible style), but in making this decision there is eloquent execution on the behalf of cinematography and editing. They help us see the monotony of prison life and the blurred lines between good and evil through graphic repetitions and associations. They build a world that heightens out perceptions of moral ambiguity.

Overall: A film I had trouble writing about because...what can I say that has not already been said? So go watch, and learn to hope. You will feel triumphant.

The Matrix (1999)

It is official...I am breaking out of my quest and reaching into important cultural films as well.

Why you may ask?

1.) Because I don't want you missing out on great films. and

2.) I am incredibly amused by this movie...So here we go

This is a horrible film...in the best way possible. I think that when they were writing the script they must have spent weeks designing this complex world and then probably had a day left before they had to have it done so they took everything that is ridiculous about film making and threw it in. However it is often those ridiculous things that keeps us coming back, myself included.

There is a part of me that got to the end of this film and wished I had hated it (the pretentious film snob in me)...but I didn't... I actually liked it a lot...and that is because Hollywood knows what sells and here they sold it.  So the short list:

1.) The Chosen One

2.)The Ultimate group of invincible bad guys

3.) The awesome action sequences

4.) The Judas character ...that everyone loves to hate

5.) The love plot...but really now...there was even a Sleeping Beauty Moment

6.) Martial Arts

7.) The group of Rebels fighting for mankind

8.) The Oracle...or the old lady who knows everything

So take all that, put in all the awful leather clad acting ,(Keanu Reeves...come on he is pretty bad) and over dramatic dialogue then embed it into this complicated alter reality and what do you get? A solid 2 hours and 16 minutes of fun entertainment. Anyone who thinks this is a great artistic feat or some deep reading  of our current societal system of existence is a moron. But anyone who wants to like this film because its just awesome, well I can support that.

Overall: Watch it. Acknowledge that it is everything formulaic about action films, but enjoy it for that same reason. Now go bend some spoons.

Il Postino (1995)

SUMMER VACATION LET THE FILM WATCHING COMMENCE!

Nominee

This is where simplicity meets poignancy and where artistic license speaks with the narration. All in all I am not a fan of narration for the sake of narration or art for the sake of art (there are exceptions but not many). This is because film is so much more when the two work together in a multidimensional system of building the viewing experience. If you defamiliarize the audience with an image and then make it subtly accentuate the story its not only beautiful but it's also useful.

Il Postino uses this idea in a very simple and clean way which then allows the viewer to access the characters on a very real and emotional level. This is a story that is completely driven by the characters and all cost we must access them, and we do. The postman, played by MassimoTroisi, is a lovable bumbling man who wants nothing more than what everyone wants, love. He then befriends an exiled Pablo Neruda (Philippe Noiret) and begins to see the beauty around him and becomes more connected with his world, including wooing Beatrice (Maria Grazia Cucinotta) which comes with the most entertaining part of the movie, her aunt. 

The characters give us a story of friendship and of admiration, and we see it through images of landscape and  history. At one point Pablo Neruda asks Mario, the postman, what is beautiful about his island and he says nothing. Yet throughout the film we are given artistic shots of rolling waves and winding roads up picturesque mountains. We have the answer because of the visual choosing of the director, but we watch the postman learn it.  However we are also given a historical context to deal with, with Pablo Neruda only being there because he is exiled from Chile for his communist platform, the postman is given Pablo the communist and so are we. Which makes the end that much more tragic...can't tell you about it because it is the turning point of the whole movie so watch and find out. 

My one real qualm with the film is pacing...I do admit I am an impatient person...however, it does drag its feet at times.

Overall: Simplicity can speak so very clearly to an audience if it is done with grace and purpose. This movie does this very well, making us fall for the characters and therefore the story. Yes it is slow at times but I think it is a real hidden gem in the mass of movies that embodies the best picture nominees. Watch and enjoy! 

Hugo (2011)

Nominee

Scorsese!! You made a kids film!!! And a good one at that.

At first I did not really appreciate what this film was...I kept hearing different things..."It's about a kid who lives in a clock!"...."It's about the filmmaker Georges Melies!"..."It's a Scorsese kid's film!" (Sorry, I, like everyone else, still can't get over that). Well it was no suprise to me that it was about all of those things, but what did suprise was how cohessive the story actually was, and how well Scorsese brought it to the screen.

In almost every aspect of this film it achieved an artistic perfection that truly aided the story. There are a number of motifs that I could use but I would like to touch on three in order to accentuate what made this movie a good watch.

1.) Clocks (time): Time is what carries us forward, what either makes us progress or leaves us behind.  Time is what both Hugo and Melies are victims of, the unfortunate progression of time moving forward leaving them to fend for themselves. However time is also what is needed to bring them together and motivate them to keep creating.  Visually, clocks are all over the film, from Hugo running the clock, to references to clocks in old Buster Keaton clips. We also have the inspector constantly checking his watch. There is no missing this image in the movie.

2.) Innovation/Curiosity: The constant need to discover. What more does a kid need to relate to our hero. It brings us back making us remember our years of persistent curiosity.  The ideas of fixing, creating, and purpose drive our characters forward in a constant search of belonging. From shots of children peering through keyholes, to watching intently as we watch the automaton work for the first time. The editing and shot choices directly instill a child like curiosity into the viewer. Not to mention the saturation of the eye colors of most of the characters, it is through the eyes that we learn, we perceive. The eyes are out gateways to new ideas, new adventures. 

3.)Movie-making/Dreaming: This is Scorsese's love poem to making films. At times the dialogue is not very coded but I forgive it do to it being a kid's film. Melies stands in his studio during a flashback and says, "If you've ever wondered where your dreams come from, you look around... this is where they're made." Through out the movie films are another way to make people imagine, to make them dream. It really is quite beautiful how it is discussed. 

There are so many more recurring ideas but just to give you an idea about how dynamic this film actually  is I named a few.  Also I would be remiss for wrapping this up with out mentioning the actors, everyone provides a certain heightened character of life that makes for a good childhood dream. 

Overall: I loved it! It brought me back to being a kid discovering, fixing, looking for purpose, this film has so much to offer in keeping dreaming  alive. And in case you were wondering I did not watch it in 3D, so although there are a few times you notice it missing overall it still translates. So, Sit back, watch this movie and no matter what age you are Happy Dreaming! 

True Grit (2010)

Nominee

I want to live in the Wild West!... I want to be a old drunken bamf with one eye riding around on a horse and a reputation!... I want to be a young girl trying to obtain retribution while also providing maturity and know how beyond her years!... I want Matt Damon!... If you share with me any of these wants and also just appreciate a good affinity for straight up story telling, you will like this film.

The Coen Brothers took the west provided their signature writing and pacing to it, and brought to life intriguing archetypal characters with "true grit". These characters demand our respect, because we all know that we wish we were that rugged, and getting to watch them; is simply enjoyable.

The actors portraying these them all bring their best to the table. Jeff Bridges brings both the aged Marshall and the father figure to the role of Rooster Cogburn.  Matt Damon does a respectable job of playing a Texas Ranger who attempts to lead a life of structure in the setting of lawlessness.  However, most notable, is Hailee Steinfeld, only 14 at the time, she shows levels of worldly understanding that you just don't expect. They certainly make a compelling cast.

Then there is the script. I love the Coen brothers, much for the same reason I like Quentin Tarantino, they do of course give us very different views of the work, but I feel they are both obsessed with attempting to show us the ordinary in the extraordinary. By doing that they allow their audience to believe the story being told. It makes the settings and the story relatable while also making it something exciting; something new that a viewer would want to witness.

Also the cinematography and the art direction make very clear choices in setting the scene. It is in color saturation and the focus of the camera where we gain our appreciation for the world that these story takes place. A commendable job to the both of them.

I feel like I can't end this post without mentioning....I have not seen the John Wayne version... much to my embarrassment. However, to the purist I say, perhaps without right, that I think this provides a different angle on the story. It gives it a modern pacing, not to replace the first movie but simple to provide a different just as viable answer.

Overall: I really enjoyed this film. It made me appreciate the American western all over again.  Which is always a good thing. Pop some popcorn and  Happy Watching!