Oh Vampires and Cowboys...

The Addiction(dir. Abel Ferrara)
It's hard to resist a film that compares vampiric blood lust to heroine addiction and to sin. We're human so obviously we sin, but what do we do about it? Like the responses Kathleen's victims give when she threatens to harm them if they don't say some variation of "go away," we're usually passive and evasive. We try to brush it off. The film suggests that forgetting about your sins is about as bad as letting an addiction go uncheck even when the addiction involves other people's blood. The film is basically Ms .45 minus the .45 and feminist undertones. In their place are vampire fangs and Catholic and existential undertones. The similarities in story and structure between the two are uncanny especially since they're both written by the same guy. This film, however, ends on a much better note than that film and doesn't contain any extremely annoying neighbors for the protagonist and the audience to be pestered by. Unlike Ms .45, this film has a somewhat pretentious vibe given all it's philosophical banter, but that might mainly be because I didn't understand most of it. It also felt like it wasn't going anywhere until it's redemptive conclusion that made all the ennui one might experience worthwhile. I highly recommend.
***1/2 out of ****

The Tin Star(dir. Anthony Mann)
An average western with Henry Fonda and Anthony Perkins. While I'm not that big of a fan of Mann's westerns(the ones I have seen) outside of The Man From Laramie, they at least had a sense of immediacy to them to make them entertaining. This just slowly inches it's way to a predictable happy ending. There are some scenes that you could picture being memorable if Mann added an extra oomph to them, but he doesn't and they end up being fairly generic. The appeal of the film(for me at least) comes mainly from the two leads. The relationship between their characters is quite clichéd, resembling something along the lines of "The Sheriff Kid," and they both end up giving clichéd performances because of it. Overall, it's bland and uninteresting.
** out of ****

Oh 2007...

Going to do a top 10 list of movies released in 2007 in the US of A. It's obviously going to be a work in progress. I'm going to try to do other top 10 lists for each year.

Official End of the Year List

2007
1. Fay Grim(dir. Hal Hartley)
2. Offside(dir. Jafar Panahi)
3. Death Proof(dir. Quentin Tarantino)
4. Pirates of the Carribean: At World's End(dir. Gore Verbinski)
5. Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters(dir. Dave Willis and Matt Maillero)
6. Red Road(dir. Andrea Arnold)
7. Broken English(dir. Zoe R. Cassavetes)
8. Gone Baby Gone(dir. Ben Affleck)
9. The Darjeeling Limited(dir. Wes Anderson)
10. Southland Tales(dir. Richard Kelly)

English Language Films:
1. Fay Grim(dir. Hal Hartley)
2. Southland Tales(dir. Richard Kelly)
3. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End(dir. Gore Verbenski)
4. Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford(dir. Andrew Dominik)
5. Death Proof(dir. Quentin Tarantino)
6. We Own the Night(dir. James Gray)
7. The Darjeeling Limited(dir. Wes Anderson)
8. Redacted(dir. Brian De Palma)
9. Red Road(dir. Andrea Arnold)
10. The Game Plan(dir. Andy Fickman?)

Foreign Language Films:
1. Election(dir. Johnnie To)
2. Syndromes and a Century(dir. "Joe")
3. Exiled(dir. Johnnie To)
4. Golden Door(dir. Forgot)
5. Offside(dir. Jafar Panahi)
6. The Wayward Cloud(dir. Tsai Ming-liang)
7. Triad Election(dir. Johnnie To)
8. Drama/Mex(dir. Forgot)

Honorable mentions: 28 Weeks Later..., The Game Plan, Election, Exiled, We Own the Night, Triad Election, The Wayward Cloud, I Am Legend, Live Free or Die Hard[Unrated Cut], Drama/Mex, Ratatouille, The Simpsons Movie, Zodiac, Eastern Promises, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, Blades of Glory, Superbad, Knocked Up, Hot Fuzz, Vacancy, Waitress, Redacted, Juno(kind of), Ocean's Thirteen(kind of), Rush Hour 3(kind of), Tears of the Black Tiger(kind of), Black Snake Moan(kind of), and yeah...

Need to see: 2 Days in Paris, The Host, The King of Kong, I Don't Want To Sleep Alone, The Boss of It All, Persepolis, Into Great Silence, 12:08 East of Bucharest, Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, The Savages, This Is England, Youth Without Youth, Smiley Face, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, La Vie en Rose, Private Fears in Public Places, Regular Lovers, Breach, The Wind That Shakes the Barley, and Lust, Caution

Dishonorable mentions: 300, TMNT, Wild Hogs, 1408, The Bourne Ultimatum, Premonition, License to Wed, A Mighty Heart, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, I'm Not There, The Hunting Party, Rendition, The Brothers Solomon, Transformers(kind of), Spider-Man 3(kind of), and maybe more?

Noteworthy Performances by an Actor:
Michael Cera in Juno
Casey Affleck in Gone Baby Gone
Will Smith in I Am Legend
Tony Curran in Red Road
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson in The Game Plan

Noteworthy Performances by an Actress:
Parker Posey in Fay Grim
Parker Posey in Broken English
Amy Ryan in Gone Baby Gone
John Travolta in Wild Hogs
Sandra Bullock in Premonition

Guilty Pleasure of the Year:
The Game Plan

Unguilty Pleasure of the Year:
I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry

All Films Released in 2007 Seen:
3:10 to Yuma
28 Weeks Laters
1408
Alvin and the Chipmunks
Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Move Film for Theaters
Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, The
Atonement
Awake
Away from Her
Bee Movie
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
Black Book
Black Snake Moan
Blades of Glory
Bourne Ultimatum, The
Bridge to Terabithia
Broken English
Bug
Charlie Wilson's War
Control
Dan in Real Life
Darjeeling Limited, The
Day Night Day Night
Death Proof
Drama/Mex
Eastern Promises
Election
Enchanted
Evan Almighty
Exiled
Fay Grim
Flanders
Game Plan, The
Golden Door
Gone Baby Gone
Heartbreak Kid, The
He Was a Quiet Man
Hoax, The
Hot Rod
I Am Legend
I'm Not There
I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry
In the Valley of Elah
Into the Wild
Juno
Kingdom, The
Knocked Up
License to Wed
Live Free or Die Hard(+ different cut)
Lookout, The
Margot at the Wedding
Martian Child
Meet the Robinsons
Mighty Heart, A
Mist, The
Mr. Brooks
Nanny Diaries, The
No Country for Old Men
Offside
Once
Paprika
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Planet Terror
Premonition
Ratatouille
Redacted
Red Road
Rescue Dawn
Rush Hour 3
Simpsons Movie, The
Southland Tales
Spider-man 3
Stardust
Sunshine
Superbad(+ different cut)
Syndromes and a Century
Tears of the Black Tiger
There Will Be Blood
Transformers
Triad Election
Walker, The
Wayward Cloud, The
We Own the Night
Zodiac

Total Amount of Films Seen(excluding different cuts): 84
Total Amount of Films Seen(including different cuts): 86

Oh Werewolves & Authors...

An American Werewolf in London(dir. John Landis)
When you think about the film after viewing, you realize how forgettable and lightweight it all was. The film is torn between whether it's a comedy or a horror movie creating a forgettable quality since it doesn't really contain any moments that are truly scary or funny. It has a cool transformation scene, though. The end is easily the worst aspect since it just reminds the viewer of it's genre confused nature(?) with how the narrative ends, which is relatively serious, and the song that is played over the end credits, which is completely unserious. It makes the whole movie seem like a joke except it didn't really play out as one. It was entertaining but frustrating. I slightly recommend.
**1/2 out of ****

Tenebre(dir. Dario Argento)
First movie I've seen directed by him. To satisfy my need to compare "auteurs" to other "auteurs," he's what I would call the John Woo of horror with his imaginative and elaborate horror set pieces. The story, which becomes extremely interesting in it's last 10 minutes or so, is basically an excuse for these violent murders and boy, they're awesome. It's not particularly scary, but it's hard to write it off since it's still highly compelling(especially towards the end) despite this. I highly recommend.
***1/2 out of ****

Oh Tommy & Elina & Bruno...

Mission: Impossible III(dir. J.J. Abrams)
It's an effective yet impersonal action thriller. The high tech gadgetry in the film has more personality than the characters. Some of the action set pieces were entertaining like the ones set in Vatican City and Shanghai at night, but they're simply no match to the set pieces in an action movie like Live Free or Die Hard. As a spy movie, it's quite cumbersome and dull especially when compared to a film like Casino Royale, which is infinitely more engaging due to it's non-paper-thin characters. That film also allows it's audience to view the action without the overly shaky camera work and cut cut cut nonsense that plagues this film. You could easily make the mistake of thinking that Michael Bay directed this. It's still decent in it's soulless machine-like nature.
**1/2 out of ****

Amateur(dir. Hal Hartley)
When Hal puts emphasis on story instead of characters, his films suffer. This is definitely one of those cases. It expects the audience to have interest in this film about an amnesiac by having them ponder who is he? At least, that's what it seems to suggest with how the narrative plays out. Since this mystery isn't very mysterious, it's hard to really get involved with it. It definitely has it's moments, but much like The Unbelievable Truth, it doesn't really register emotionally or intellectually. I still recommend checking it out, though.
*** out of ****

Twentynine Palms(dir. Bruno Dumont)
It's one of those movies that you're glad you watched but probably won't ever want to watch again. That's not to say it's bad despite what most people will say. It just becomes excruciating before it's climatic and terrifying conclusion. While it starts off fine, there's just so much one can take of basically watching a couple burn time in the middle of the Southern California desert doing nothing much. Most scenes start off relatively sweet and turn hideously sour much like the film itself. It's hard to really describe the film preceding the last 20 minutes as sweet, but compared to those last 20 minutes, sweet doesn't seem that horrible of a description. Those last 20 minutes, which could be dubbed the "pay off" even though that makes me sound like some sadistic freak, are some of the most horrifying last 20 minutes I've ever seen. It makes the "build-up" seem worth it in some sick and deranged way. This is definitely a film that's hard to embrace due to it's unlikeable characters and extremely slow pacing, but it's still a film worth watching if you have the patience and stomach for it. I highly recommend.
***1/2 out of ****

Oh Smokey the Bear...

Miami Vice(dir. Michael Mann)[Original Cut]
The only differences that are readily apparent between the two cuts are the beginning and the music that is used in the final shoot out. The beginning in the original is much more abrupt given that it doesn't gradually let you fall into this world but ends up throwing you in the middle of it, expecting you to grasp what's going on. The viewer is forced to play catch up instead of simply sitting there passive. While playing catch up, the viewer might not ever grasp what's going on because a lot of the affairs and the story can be viewed as either painfully simple or painfully complex. The movie plays more of a deconstruction of itself with it's murky yet beautiful DV and giving the viewer action set-pieces that feel like another day of routine for it's protagonists. It's an anti-action action movie. One criticism that seems to be lobbed at this film often is the underdeveloped nature of it's characters. It's a criticism definitely worth noting especially since it was a problem that plagued my first viewing of the film in it's unrated form, but looking at the film now, it doesn't seem like a hindrance at all. These men are so involved in their careers that personality or character elude them since they're so preoccupied with going undercover and taking down drug lords to really care. Comparing these characters to other action characters like John McClane or James Bond shows the film's unsympathetic and honest portrayal of it's protagonists. It doesn't try to dress these characters up as smart or charming but as merely men doing their jobs. The level of professionalism in this film is downright intoxicating not just to this viewer but to the characters themselves. The romantic entanglements in the film don't seem to be really based on any traditional idea of attraction or love. The characters might find their lovers sexually attractive but that's clearly not what they find the most attractive. It's obviously an appreciation and lust for the other's professional mastery. Gong Li's businesswoman(forgot her name) barely knows Sonny before subsequently having sex with him. These type of quick sexual encounters happen all the time, but given the character's rather conservative demeanor, it feels like it must be a rare occurrence for her. The romantic encounters in this film practically play out as professional circle jerks. Mann not only uses these romances to create a sexual tension in this world of professional professionalism but to show the interchangeability and parallel nature between his two protagonists. He definitely gets this point across by having both protagonists have sex in the shower with their respective lover. Outside of the romance, the story could be viewed as fairly routine, but that's exactly what the film needed to be. It needed to feel routine since this type of work is supposed to be routine for it's protagonists so if it was super exciting in an action movie sort of way, it would feel false. A perfect example is the final shoot out in the film. If the intensity was notched up to match a film like say Live Free or Die Hard's intensity in that final shoot out sequence, this world of professional professionalism would basically fall apart. It's almost mundane in it's construction. Let's compare this scene to a scene in a film by a director that obviously has influenced Michael Mann, Jean-Pierre Melville. The heist scene in Le Cercle Rouge is comparable given it's low-key nature compared to other movie heists just like how the shoot out in this film compares to other shoot outs. The characters in that film don't scream or make a big fuss while performing the heist, they simply do it much like the characters in the shoot out of this film. Mann doesn't try to create false tension since it's a fairly routine occurrence for these characters. The film is a perfect match for it's characters' cold and precise demeanor up until the end, which is absolutely emotionally penetrating. This is where the underdeveloped nature of the characters turns into a blessing since the ending hints at development. They start appearing more human and graceful in their world of cold and precise professionalism. As you can tell, I fucking love this movie now. A rewatch was definitely beneficial, and I recommend everyone that didn't dig it the first time to give it another try. It's a masterpiece.
**** out of ****

Gone Baby Gone(dir. Ben Affleck)
Has easily one of the most haunting sequences of the year. If you haven't seen the movie yet, once you see it, you'll know exactly what I'm taking about. His approach to the material is impeccable, but the material itself isn't so impeccable. It's hard for me to stomach how this story leaves it's central mystery unresolved, moves on and then comes back to resolve it all nice and neatly. There is still moral baggage for the viewer to think about after viewing, but it's not nearly as engaging and honest as it could have been if it had ended relatively soon after the sequence mentioned above. Stories like these usually don't end on as happy of a note like this and it's narrative construction becomes readily apparent when it starts to initiate it's resolution when it was practically seamless before. I am looking forward to see what he directs next. I recommend.
*** out of ****

Planet Terror(dir. Robert Rodriguez)
The build-up is really fun, but once the action starts, it becomes increasingly tiresome. I have no idea whether Rodriguez wants the viewer to gawk at his creation or laugh at it. It doesn't matter since he's not successful when you approach his film from both ways. It's not nearly ridiculous enough in it's action to actually be fun. Give me Bruce Willis going off a jump with a snowmobile screaming any day of the week over this mediocre shit.
** out of ****

Oh Natassia Kinski...

Cat People(dir. Paul Schrader)
As a horror film, it simply falls flat. The film is incapable of creating a terrifying atmosphere outside of a pool sequence that was pretty much directly lifted from the original(only portion I've seen of that film). As a movie viewed on it's own terms, however, it's actually quite good. It's mythology of "cat people" is quite perverse and fascinating due to the freeing yourself from being a "cat person" through incest aspect of it. The film is definitely more sexual than gory even though there are some scenes that will surely please the gore hounds in the audience. Seeing Natassia Kinski prance around naked a bunch isn't exactly a bad thing, but it dwells on it's sexuality for far too long without really going anywhere with it. Thankfully, it does go somewhere with it near the end in a scene that's certainly interesting given it's zoophiliac undertones and use of bondage. The scene afterwards is more compelling since it's plays as an extremely unusual homage to Pickpocket's ending with the chick as a fucking cat and the guy as the non-prisoner of the two. By the end of it, you get the sensation that the film went on for too long and it ultimately suffers because of it. There's also the dated nature of the special effects that might not have been a problem in the original given it's reputation for suggesting the presence of cat people instead of actually showing(I could be wrong). Other than those gripes, I recommend.
*** out of ****

Oh Decade Lists...

Going to do Top 10's for decades and put it on here:
2000's(one film per director with some either or's since I feel I need to rewatch some of these)
1. Lilya 4-Ever(dir. Lukas Moodysson)
2. Miami Vice(dir. Michael Mann)
3. Fay Grim(dir. Hal Hartley)
4. Pistol Opera(dir. Seijun Suzuki)
5. The New World(dir. Terrence Malick)
6. Platform(dir. Jia Zhangke)[Not sure if I should put this here or below Mulholland Dr.]
7. Mulholland Dr.(dir. David Lynch)
8. The Royal Tenenbaums(dir. Wes Anderson)
9. Millenium Mambo(dir. Hou Hsiao-Hsien)[It feels strange rating one of his films higher than Tsai's, but Tsai's 90's output easily trumps Hou's best]
10. What Time Is It There? or Goodbye, Dragon Inn(dir. Tsai Ming-Liang)[Not sure which is better because I feel Time is overrated and Goodbye is underrated]
Honorable mentions: Last Life in the Universe(dir. Pen-Ek Ratanaruang), Little Children(dir. Todd Field), Marie Antoinette or Lost in Translation(dir. Sofia Coppola), Kill Bill Vol. 2(dir. Quentin Tarantino)[maybe?], George Washington(dir. David Gordon Green), Morvern Callar(dir. Lynne Ramsay)[maybe?], 2046(dir. Wong Kar-Wai)[maybe?], and more...

2000's(by year)
2000. Platform(dir. Jia Zhang Ke)
2001. Mulholland Dr.(dir. David Lynch)
2002. Femme Fatale(dir. Brian De Palma)
2003. Lilya 4-Ever(dir. Lukas Moodysson)
2004. Goodbye, Dragon Inn(dir. Tsai Ming-liang)
2005. The New World(dir. Terrence Malick)
2006. Miami Vice(dir. Michael Mann)
2007. Fay Grim(dir. Hal Hartley)

1990's(no limit per director)
1. Henry Fool(dir. Hal Hartley)
2. Simple Men(dir. Hal Hartley)
3. Trust(dir. Hal Hartley)
4. Show Me Love/Fucking Åmål(dir. Lukas Moodysson)
5. The Hole(dir. Tsai Ming-Liang)
6. Heat(dir. Michael Mann)
7. Lessons of Darkness(dir. Werner Herzog)
8. Chungking Express(dir. Wong Kar-Wai)
9. First Comes Love(dir. Su Friedrich)
10. Small Deaths(dir. Lynne Ramsay)
Honorable mentions: Wonderland(dir. Michael Winterbottom), Dead Man(dir. Jim Jarmusch), The Wind Will Carry Us(dir. Abbas Kiarostami), The Sweet Hereafter(dir. Atom Egoyan), Rebels of the Neon God(dir. Tsai Ming-Liang), Magnolia(dir. Paul Thomas Anderson)[maybe?], The Player or Short Cuts(dir. Robert Altman), The Lion King(dir. Roger Allers & Rob Minkoff)[maybe?] Light Sleeper(dir. Paul Schrader)[maybe?], Clueless(dir. Amy Heckerling)[maybe?], Little Dieter Needs to Fly(dir. Werner Herzog), The Big Lebowski(dir. Coens Brothers)[slightly?], King of New York(dir. Abel Ferrara)[maybe?], Hard-Boiled(dir. John Woo)[maybe?], Barcelona(dir. Whit Stillman), Clueless(dir. Amy Heckerling), and more...

1990's(one film per director this time)
1. Henry Fool(dir. Hal Hartley)
2. Show Me Love/Fucking Åmål(dir. Lukas Moodysson)
3. The Hole(dir. Tsai Ming-liang)
4. Heat(dir. Michael Mann)
5. Lessons of Darkness(dir. Werner Herzog)
6. Chungking Express(dir. Wong Kar-wai)
7. First Comes Love(dir. Su Friedrich)
8. Small Deaths(dir. Lynne Ramsay)
9. Barcelona(dir. Whit Stillman)
10. The Player(dir. Robert Altman)

1990's(by year)
1990. Die Hard 2: Die Harder(dir. ?)
1991. Trust(dir. Hal Hartley)
1992. Simple Men(dir. Hal Hartley)
1993. Short Cuts(dir. Robert Altman)
1994. Chungking Express(dir. Wong Kar-Wai)
1995. Heat(dir. Michael Mann)
1996. Dead Man(dir. Jim Jarmusch)
1997. The Sweet Hereafter(dir. Atom Egoyan)
1998. Henry Fool(dir. Hal Hartley)
1999. Show Me Love(dir. Lukas Moodysson)

1980's(no limit per director)
1. L'Argent(dir. Robert Bresson)
2. The Sacrifice(dir. Andrei Tarkovsky)
3. Damned If You Don't(dir. Su Friedrich)
4. The Ties That Bind(dir. Su Friedrich)
5. Choose Me(dir. Alan Rudolph)
6. Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters(dir. Paul Schrader)
7. Down By Law(dir. Jim Jarmusch)
8. Paris, Texas(dir. Wim Wenders)
9. Landscape in the Mist(dir. Theo Angelopoulos)
10. Do the Right Thing(dir. Spike Lee)
Honorable mentions: Day of the Dead(dir. George A. Romero), Dekalog Six(dir. Krzysztof Kieslowski), Full Metal Jacket(dir. Stanley Kubrick)[maybe?], White Dog or The Big Red One(dir. Samuel Fuller)[maybe?] and more...

1970's(one film per director)
1. A Woman Under the Influence(dir. John Cassavetes)
2. Hospital(dir. Frederick Wiseman)
3. The Mirror(dir. Andrei Tarkovsky)
4. M*A*S*H(dir. Robert Altman)
5. Days of Heaven(dir. Terrence Malick)
6. Suspiria(dir. Dario Argento)
7. Aguirre, the Wrath of God(dir. Werner Herzog)
8. The Passenger(dir. Michelangelo Antonioni)
9. Killer of Sheep(dir. Charles Burnett)
10. Lancelot of the Lake(dir. Robert Bresson)
Honorable mentions: Apocalypse Now, The Marriage of Maria Braun

1960's(one film per director for now)
1. Titicut Follies(dir. Frederick Wiseman)
2. Woman in the Dunes(dir. Hiroshi Teshigahara)
3. Masculin, feminin(dir. Jean-Luc Godard)
4. Branded to Kill(dir. Seijun Suzuki)
5. The Battle of Algiers(dir. Gillo Pontrevico)
6. Double Suicide(dir. Masahiro Shinoda)
7. Scorpio Rising(dir. Kenneth Anger)
8. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance(dir. John Ford)
9. 8 1/2 or La Dolce Vita(dir. Federico Fellini)
10. Mouchette(dir. Robert Bresson)
Honorable mentions: Harakiri(dir. Masaki Kobayashi), Rocco and His Brothers(dir. Luchino Visconti), Winter Light(dir. Ingmar Bergman), Andrei Rublev(dir. Andrei Tarkovsky), The Pawnbroker(dir. Sidney Lumet), 2001: A Space Oddysey or Dr. Strangelove(dir. Stanley Kubrick), Psycho or The Birds(dir. Alfred Hitchcock), The Naked Kiss(dir. Samuel Fuller), and more...

1950's
1. In a Lonely Place(dir. Nicholas Ray)
2. Ace in the Hole(dir. Billy Wilder)
3. On Dangerous Ground(dir. Nicholas Ray)
4. Shadows(dir. John Cassavetes)
5. The Searchers(dir. John Ford)
6. Ashes and Diamonds(dir. Andzrej Wajda)
7. The Killing(dir. Stanley Kubrick)
8. Rear Window(dir. Alfred Hitchcock)
9. Vertigo(dir. Alfred Hitchcock)
10. Diary of a Country Priest(dir. Robert Bresson)
Honorable mentions: The Big Heat(dir. Fritz Lang), Kiss Me Deadly(dir. Robert Aldrich), The Steel Helmet(dir. Samuel Fuller)[maybe?], The Seventh Seal(dir. Ingmar Bergman), Hiroshima, Mon Amour(dir. Alain Resnais), and others that I most likely forgot about...

1950's(by year)
1950. In a Lonely Place(dir. Nicholas Ray)
1951. Ace in the Hole(dir. Billy Wilder)
1952. On Dangerous Ground(dir. Nicholas Ray)
1959. Shadows(dir. John Cassavetes)

1940's
1. My Darling Clementine(dir. John Ford)
2. The Lady From Shanghai(dir. Orson Welles)

1930's
1. You Only Live Once(dir. Fritz Lang)
2. Vampyr(dir. Carl Theodor Dreyer)
3. The Grand Illusion(dir. Jean Renoir)
4. Rules of the Game(dir. Jean Renoir)

UPDATE:
2000's(excluding 2008 release):
[i]The New World[/i][Extended Cut](dir. Terrence Malick)
[i]Miami Vice[/i](dir. Michael Mann)
[i]Fay Grim[/i](dir. Hal Hartley)
[i]Pat Garett and Billy the Kid[/i][2005 Cut](dir. Sam Peckinpah)
[i]George Washington[/i](dir. David Gordon Green)
[i]Mulholland Drive[/i](dir. David Lynch)
[i]Femme Fatale[/i](dir. Brian De Palma)
[i]Marie Antoinette[/i](dir. Sofia Coppola)
[i]Punch-Drunk Love[/i](dir. Paul Thomas Anderson)
[i]Pistol Opera[/i](dir. Seijun Suzuki)
[i]Lilya 4-Ever[/i](dir. Lukas Moodysson)
[i]INLAND EMPIRE[/i](dir. David Lynch)
[i]Death Proof[/i](dir. Quentin Tarantino)
[i]Platform[/i](dir. Jia Zhangke)
[i]Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy[/i](dir. Adam McKay)
[i]Twentynine Palms[/i](dir. Bruno Dumont)
[i]L'Enfant[/i](dir. Dardenne Brothers)
[i]The Girl From Monday[/i](dir. Hal Hartley)
[i]2046[/i](dir. Wong Kar-wai)

1990's:
[i]Henry Fool[/i](dir. Hal Hartley)
[i]Trust[/i](dir. Hal Hartley)
[i]Simple Men[/i](dir. Hal Hartley)
[i]Heat[/i](dir. Michael Mann)
[i]Clueless[/i](dir. Amy Heckerling)
[i]The Hole[/i](dir. Tsai Ming-liang)
[i]Vive L'Amour[/i](dir. Tsai Ming-liang)
[i]Rebels of the Neon God[/i](dir. Tsai Ming-liang)
[i]Show Me Love[/i]/[i]Fucking Åmål[/i](dir. Lukas Moodysson)
[i]First Comes Love[/i](dir. Su Friedrich)
[i]Small Deaths[/i](dir. Lynne Ramsay)
[i]Chungking Express[/i](dir. Wong Kar-wai)
[i]The Big Lebowski[/i](dir. Coen Brothers)
[i]Hard Boiled[/i](dir. John Woo)
[i]King of New York[/i](dir. Abel Ferrara)

1980's:
[i]Choose Me[/i](dir. Alan Rudolph)
[i]Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom[/i](dir. Steven Spielberg)
[i]Paris, Texas[/i](dir. Wim Wenders)
[i]L'Argent[/i](dir. Robert Bresson)
[i]The Sacrifice[/i](dir. Andrei Tarkovsky)
[i]The Ties That Bind[/i](dir. Su Friedrich)

1960's
[i]Titicut Follies[/i](dir. Frederick Wiseman)
[i]Woman in the Dunes[/i](dir. Hiroshi Teshigahara)
[i]Branded to Kill[/i](dir. Seijun Suzuki)
[i]Tokyo Drifter[/i](dir. Seijun Suzuki)
[i]Double Suicide[/i](dir. Masahiro Shinoda)
[i]The Wild Bunch[/i](dir. Sam Peckinpah)
[i]The Battle of Algiers[/i](dir. Gillo Pontrevico)
[i]Masculin, feminin[/i](dir. Jean-Luc Godard)
[i]Pierrot le Fou[/i](dir. Jean-Luc Godard)
[i]Andrei Rublev[/i](dir. Andrei Tarkovsky)
[i]Scorpio Rising[/i](dir. Kenneth Anger)
[i]Harakiri[/i](dir. Masaki Kobayashi)
[i]Rocco and His Brothers[/i](dir. Luchino Visconti)
[i]Mouchette[/i](dir. Robert Bresson)
[i]Through a Glass Darkly[/i](dir. Ingmar Bergman)

1950's
[i]In a Lonely Place[/i](dir. Nicholas Ray)
[i]Ace in the Hole[/i](dir. Billy Wilder)
[i]The Big Heat[/i](dir. Fritz Lang)

Oh John "Badman" & Jia...

Evan Almighty(dir. Tom Shadyac)
I have to admit that I was eventually won over by it's cheesy family-friendly nature. It stopped being horrible when it finally stopped using Steve Carrell essentially the same way as Wild Hogs used William H. Macy and had animals help him build his ark. After that point, the film became relatively funny in a campy way much like Full House except less cringe-inducing. This is a work of ARK.
**1/2 out of ****
Platform(dir. Jia Zhangke)
I'm not even going to attempt to analyze and criticize this film due to it's lack of an apparent narrative structure and it's pretty impossible for me to articulate how I felt while watching it. All I can say is that it's a masterpiece and definitely check it out.
**** out of ****

Oh Matthew "Smells Like a Man" McConaughey...

We Are Marshall(dir. McG)
The underdog I was rooting for while watching this was not the team but the movie itself. I was hoping it would overcome it's overly sappy and formulaic nature and become a genuinely good movie, but it simply didn't happen despite what looked like a touchdown of an ending that quickly became a trite and sentimental one that you see in practically every "inspirational sports" movie known to mankind. I have respect for the movie for actually giving the audience information about what happened to the "real" people that were involved with this "story" even though it's not exactly uplifting. Despite having a solid beginning, some amusing bits with Matthew McConaughey, and a relatively decent side-story concerning a fiancé of one of the players, I simply can't recommend seeing this. It was merely average.
** out of ****

Oh Carolyn Farina...

Metropolitan(dir. Whit Stillman)
Amusing but not nearly as amusing as Barcelona due to it's trivialness being set in a fairly trivial setting instead of, well, Barcelona. Barcelona had a larger scope given the events that transpired so it's trivial conversations felt out of place and were more amusing because of it. The acting and writing also felt more assured in that film compared to this. This was still amusing, though.
*** out of ****

Oh Adam and Hiroshi...

Reign Over Me(dir. Mike Binder)
Why 9/11 and why this character? Those were the thoughts initially running through my head while I watching this. The only answers I could come up with is having a protagonist that is a little off his rocker and having him become more "normal" by the end is a real crowd-pleaser even though that doesn't heal the character's wounds from losing his whole family to the events that occurred on 9/11 or at least it shouldn't and since 9/11 is still fresh in our minds, why not exploit the event by using it to get the audience to sympathize with a character that stemmed from a screenwriter's imagination? It's ultimately frustrating since you wonder why they didn't make a film about someone dealing with loss in a rather "traditional" manner instead of Charlie's "amnesiac" approach of coping. The film is pretty much a mess in terms of what it wants to be. It tries to be light-hearted one moment then the next moment, it tries to be a tear-jerker. This tonal confusion comes to a head with a particularly awkward speech that Charlie delivers to his parents-in-law about why he's handling the situation the way he is. You're not sure if you're supposed to be laughing or crying. The light-hearted moments definitely work better since the sad moments are so obviously designed to manipulate that they fail to take effect. That's not to say that Sandler's performance is bad since he was able to create some emotional involvement from this reviewer. It's just that the material he has to work with is not so hot. The film hits it's low point with a court room scene that's absolutely cringe-inducing in it's grotesque nature and it's attempt at creating a love interest for the protagonist that is equally as crazy was pretty laughable. Two crazy peas in a pod. I still don't know why the movie attached itself to 9/11 since it just makes it easier to criticize it to high heaven. It was ultimately average.
** out of ****
The Face of Another(dir. Hiroshi Teshigahara)
So stylistically bold that it verges on completely alienating it's audience and that's precisely what makes it bitching. Much like Hiroshima Mon Amour, it's philosophical to a fault, but the psycho-analytical nature of it's dialogue is easier to stomach due to the presence of a psychiatrist character. If I was reviewing the story with the woman that appears to be scarred from nuclear exposure by itself, this would easily be deemed a masterpiece by this reviewer, but since I'm reviewing it as a whole, it's merely a near-masterpiece. It quickly becomes tiresome in it's "the mask will take over" philosophical banter. It's not nearly as hauntingly beautiful as Woman in the Dunes, but it's definitely no slouch either. Any movie that uses a recording of a Hitler speech for no apparent reason is A OK in my book.
***1/2 out of ****

Oh Daddy, don't you love me?...

1408(dir. Mikael Håfström)
It's basically the Haunted Mansion(the ride, not the movie) except less scary and fun. Compared to Vacancy, this film depends on it's hotel room setting to change and expand through supernatural means to "entertain" it's audience instead of embracing the claustrophobic nature of having such a minuscule setting for a majority of the running time to actually create a rather unnerving atmosphere to entertain it's audience with. There's a serious lack of danger in this film to make any of it thrilling or even mildly scary. Some aspects of the film are interesting, but seem to linger with very little examination or depth. The main character having lost a daughter to some unnamed illness and being haunted by the memory of her during his stay in 1408 is certainly interesting, but this aspect of the character's history is used to manipulate it's audience to sympathize with his character more instead of being used to create a layer of depth to the film. The character also has some daddy issues even though the film doesn't bother to dwell on this any longer than probably 2 minutes. I feel I might be overly harsh for giving this film the same rating as Wild Hogs, but John Travolta's train wreck of a performance was at least a little amusing to behold while this film is an absolute bore despite being less brain-dead.
*1/2 out of ****

Oh Harry and Naomi...

Bug(dir. William Friedkin)
Main problem with this movie is that in order to get maximum enjoyment out of it, you have to at least think what this couple starts saying and thinking might be true even though it's obvious that they're off the wall bonkers. When a "doctor" comes into the picture, he reinforces what most of it's viewers were thinking: these people are fucking cuckoo. There are instances where it's hard to watch with a straight face just because of how ridiculous it can get like Peter hitting himself and practically having a seizure from trying to get the bugs off of him. I have to respect the film for being so willing to have it's protagonists go nuts despite most likely alienating most of it's audience and there's something of interest in watching the mental disintegration of these characters, but you just wish the film didn't expect it's audience to take it so seriously. It was ultimately decent.
**1/2 out of ****
Mulholland Dr.(dir. David Lynch)
This movie is simply unexplainable much like Inland Empire even though my review of that film consisted mainly of me using and abusing a pool metaphor. I'll try to explain it with a bunch of adjectives because that's what film criticism is mainly composed of. It's erotic. It's insane, but not as insane as Inland Empire. It's divine. It's a dream. It's a nightmare. It's beautiful. It's amazing. Naomi Watts gives easily one of the best performances an actress has ever given on celluloid. Watching the auditioning scene is simply exhilarating because of how forceful her performance is. Thank God, this movie's ending felt like a natural outgrowth of what preceded it because it would have been a shame to see this film fall apart like Inland Empire did. It's a masterpiece.
**** out of ****

Oh Mary Elizabeth Winstead...

Death Proof(dir. Quentin Tarantino)
This could be considered a religious movie if car chase-ism was considered a religion. In this film, speed is considered divine and cars are considered as holy vessels. The morality in this film is fairly simple: whoever is going fast is God and whoever tries to stop one from going fast is The Devil. There's only two chases in this film, but both are deeply emotional for the individuals involved much like a religious epiphany. Some could view this film as dull or boring because there's a lot of talk in it for a film that's sole purpose seems to be to have a kick ass car chase, but if car chases are to be considered religious epiphanies in this universe than it makes sense why there would be some build-up. Tarantino doesn't seem to strain too hard to make his dialogue "hip" in this, which might take some people off guard. Well, in the beginning with the first batch of girls, he seemed to strain, but after that part, it felt surprisingly natural. Sure, the dialogue is probably Tarantino's fantasy of what girls talk about when there's no guys around, but it's still refreshing to see him not trying too hard to impress his audience with "cool" dialogue. The first half with the first batch of girls feels like a totally different animal from the second half with the second batch of girls. It's going for a smutty feel, almost like a fully-clothed porno, but fails to titillate since the actresses aren't particularly good or attractive. Quentin Tarantino's cameo role is surprisingly not as horrible as you would expect given that his cameo role in Pulp Fiction almost completely ruined that movie. The whole love story with Jungle Julia and some record producer(not totally sure) through text-messaging was easily the dumbest portion of the film and I'd imagined wasn't given any focus in the Grindhouse cut because of it's stupidity. This part with the first batch is still watchable despite it's flaws especially since Kurt Russell's Stuntman Mike, who is charmingly creepy and sadistic, is given more focus in this portion. The second part is easily the better of the two since it's batch of actresses can act and are actually attractive. It's kind of amazing how Tarantino can make a bunch of girls just talking about nothing much actually compelling. It's easy to see how some didn't take to liking this film, but I found it invigorating. The role reversal near the end was relatively awkward since it happened so quickly. It's surprising to find Stuntman Mike a sympathetic character through this portion of the film given his actions. The end's apparent cheesy punching and kicking was off-putting because the rest of this portion was relatively grounded. Other than that, I highly recommend.
***1/2 out of ****

Oh William Talman...

The Hitch-Hiker(dir. Ida Lupino)
It starts off fine with showing the hitch-hiker killer's crimes that precedes the central crime, but it quickly becomes reluctant in it's doom and gloom. This man is ruthless in these crimes, but the central crime of taking these two men hostage almost seems to be conducted by another man. He's not ruthless, just coyly sadistic. He's easily the most memorable aspect of the film since the desert locales aren't exactly beautiful and the other characters are fairly one-dimensional, it's just that he's not as threatening as you would like. The film is suspenseful to a degree, it's just that you could easily imagine the film being much better if he was as ruthless as he was in the beginning. His idea of entertainment is particularly sadistic, but there's not enough of that in the picture to seem satisfying. The best moment could easily be the scene where he tells one of his hostages to drop a rock down a shaft, giving him the idea that is where he's going to dump his body after he kills him. It's this sense of doom that makes the film compelling, but as it ends, you feel it didn't go all the way with it's concept. There's very little sense of danger throughout the picture as scene after scene shows the killer doing everything in his power not to kill these men. This film is highly watchable, it's just disappointing. Now excuse me while I go reread A Good Man Is Hard To Find.
*** out of ****

Oh John & Lynne & Lynne & Jose...

Kill the Day(dir. Lynne Ramsay)
It tried to be compelling in it's vagueness, but it was more dull than mysterious. A junkie character can be interesting, but since he barely does anything remotely interesting, he's not interesting. The most interesting aspect about the character is the guilt-ridden memories he has from childhood. The film was still interesting in it's elliptical way. I recommend.
*** out of ****
Small Deaths(dir. Lynne Ramsay)
Pretty much perfect. It's amazing that this short film was made in the same year as the one above since this is much more accomplished artistically. I never understood why short films always have to be some gimmicky piece of shit or a condensed feature-length film. This shows that a truly great short film is one that is extremely simple yet mysterious. I loved how you see this girl's childhood and it all of a sudden jumps to her much bleaker present life. Highly recommended.
**** out of ****
Gasman(dir. Lynne Ramsay)
This is probably more technically accomplished than the previous film, but the previous film is still better. The concept of a child meeting her father's other family seems strangely intriguing and scary. The bit with the rock near the end seemed to be a little heavy-handed. It's as if it was trying to show the young character has learned to accept her previously unknown half-sister, but it felt like a cheap attempt at suspense. Other that that, it was really good.
***1/2 out of ****
Whirlpool(dir. Otto Preminger)
It felt fairly routine until the murder plot/case came around. Jose Ferrer is an intriguing villain. So charismatic that he has to be evil. He's easily the most compelling character in the picture. Without him, this would have only been decent. Gene Tierney's housewife is a little too housewife-y and Richard Conte's dedicated and respectable husband is a little too dedicated and respectable husband-y. Jose Ferrer's character brings a cynically Social Darwinistic outlook to the film that it really needs. This world needs a little corruption, without it, it might as well be Leave It to Beaver with kleptomania as it's subject of the week. Obviously, I have never seen an episode of Leave It to Beaver, but I've seen this. I highly recommend.
***1/2 out of ****

Oh Ida & Rachel & Mira...

On Dangerous Ground(dir. Nicholas Ray)
It started off slow and was rather cold much like it's main character, but that quickly changed once the character gets relocated and meets Ida Lupino's character. She brings warmth and grace to the main character as well as the picture as a whole. The film is rather unsatisfying when it tries to please it's crowd with chases and the score becomes obnoxiously bombastic during these sequences. The score, however, is rather hypnotic when it's quiet and serene. I think I've put off saying this long enough, but this has to be one of the most moving experiences I've had in all of cinema. The last ten minutes are simply breathtaking. This film is fucking fantastic.
**** out of ****
The Fountain(dir. Darren Aronofsky)
Heartfelt, but somewhat brain dead. It's almost embarrassing in it's emotional sincerity and it is at given moments (Jackman's Spanish character gulping down the tree "jizz" all crazily made me LOL). It's a strange combination of grace and cheese. The film works best when it dwells on the feelings of lost one feels after a loved one dies and the film works worst when it dwells on it's spiritual mumbo jumbo. A majority of the scenes set in Izzy's story felt like filler while the future sections complimented the present story fairly well with it being a manifestation of Jackman's character's emotions. The whole thing could be deemed silly and at some points, it is, but there's something to be said about a film that was made with such conviction and compassion. Some of his stylistic touches seemed unnecessary and some scenes spelled things out a little too clearly for the audience, but there's still something here to marvel. The score was excellent and the film was visually stunning at points(mainly the future scenes). This isn't a great work of art, but it's a heartfelt one.
*** out of ****
Barcelona(dir. Whit Stillman)
I wasn't digging this in the beginning. I felt it was the perfect example of the Honkeys with Money and Problems genre and didn't give a shit about the characters. I took a food break and came back and I guess I gave into it somehow. It quickly became amusing in it's apparent trivialness. Mira Sorvino and Turska Bergen were smoking and you sit there wondering how were these self-obsessed intellectuals able to get these girls to go out with them? Some dialogue in the end attempts to answer that question rather amusingly. The movie as a whole was a highly amusing experience. I highly recommend seeing it.
***1/2 out of ****

Oh Erika Oda...

After Life(dir. Hirokazu Koreeda)
I have similar feelings to this as I do to Maborosi. It's a fairly non-narrative film and then it starts to become more "conventional" and less satisfying. While Maborosi remained fairly non-narrative up until the end, which slightly demystified the experience for me, this became more narratively focused more subtly and less abruptly. It's a joy to watch a character's joy in discussing his/her most beloved memories and when the film moves away from those type of moments, the film becomes less of a joy to watch. It still remained highly enjoyable, it just wasn't the same after that. The "scene" in the screening room would have been a better ending than the one that was decided upon, but that one's no slouch either. It's abrupt nature was rather refreshing and suggested that much like life, after life goes on... I highly recommend checking this out.
***1/2 out of ****

Oh Jack Nicholson...

The Passenger(dir. Michelangelo Antonioni)
Riveting in it's portrayal of existential funk. L'Eclisse, while a worthwhile viewing, felt too blunt and obvious in it's portrayal of disillusionment and detachment. This film is thankfully more graceful and intriguing. The sub-plot with the wife was unnecessary and hurt the flow of the film. Why would the audience care all that much about his wife's quest to find him? It's not given enough screen time to be involving yet it's given enough screen time to be distracting. That sub-plot adds conventionality to a relatively unconventional film. Jack Nicholson delivers a fine performance. Maria Schneider definitely looks good, but doesn't deliver as fine of a performance as Jack's. The famous window shot while amazing on a technical level was slightly excessive in terms of length. The end was slightly dull and contrived, but I can‘t really think of ending it in any other way. It was still pretty unsatisfying. If Antonioni had cut off the narrative fat that was the sub-plot with the wife and concluded the narrative better, this would have been a lean mean masterpiece, but as it is, it's a slightly fatty near-masterpiece.
***1/2 out of ****

Oh Hal Hartley...

Fay Grim(dir. Hal Hartley)
It's always hard to articulate my thoughts on his movies due to the fact that it's such a personal experience for me and usually consists of me feeling "god, this is fucking perfect." Sure, no movie is perfect, but some of his movies are as close to perfect as you can possibly get at least with their material. This film took me by surprise. I expected it to be disappointing since the reviews for it have been fairly ho-hum, but this could possibly be his best. Every time I see one of his movies, I say that one is his best even though it's probably due to the fact that it's fresh in my mind and gut. It's amazing at how he basically demolishes Henry Fool in order to make this an enormously satisfying sequel since sequels are usually used to reinforce the film that precedes them. While this film makes Henry Fool perhaps more thematically shallow, you can still watch that film and pretend to be ignorant to the events that happen in this film. I wouldn't quite say this film is as thematically deep as Henry Fool was because it doesn't give the audience much to think about, but there's still some aspects that are fairly thought-provoking mainly how foreign relations are displayed as a confusing web-like mess. Most of the characters seem to be acting on past experiences much like how foreign policy usually is. Henry Fool, the character, probably should not have been shown in this film at all until the end mainly because he's too "big" of a character to have such little screen time. It took a whole feature-length film to really warm up to the character and having a five minute scene with him thrown in the narrative just halts the momentum of the film. The ending is one of those classic Hal Hartley endings where it ends ambiguously and almost unsatisfyingly until the music and credits roll and you sit there and think "god, that was fucking perfect." I could see how some of the stylistic touches like the Dutch angles and the slideshow shoot-outs could be off-putting to some people, but to me, it seems more honest. Hartley always seemed to point out the artifice in his films and employing these stylistic aspects makes the self-deconstructive nature of his work more upfront and accessible to new viewers in my mind. This is easily the best film of the year so far.
**** out of ****

Oh Michel Gondry...

The Science of Sleep(dir. Michel Gondry)
Having seen some of his music videos prepared me for this craziness. The film is definately more reminscent of those music videos I've seen than Eternal Sunshine. This film contained a child-like charm to it, but it was also as immature as it's main character with some of it's scenes. It's innocence was infectious. Gael Garcia Bernal's performance was quite remarkable since his character could have easily been portrayed in a rather unlikeable and unbelievable way. Some of his dreams seemed "too" goofy and some of his actions were frustratingly immature near the end, but I guess if you're a man-child, immaturity comes with the territory. It was whimsical and charming. I really enjoyed this.
***1/2 out of ****

Oh Tony Curran...

Red Road(dir. Andrea Arnold)
Wasp is one of the best short films I've ever seen mainly because it didn't rely on a gimmick to be enjoyable and actually had a compelling narrative so I had to see this. The film starts off slow, but quickly picks up in it's last half hour or so. The film's biggest problem was withholding information that would have made the experience much more engaging and tense throughout, but dramatic reveals are the craze today. The dramatic reveal is actually handled in a rather straight-forward matter, it just seemed unnecessary to withhold that information up to the point even though it was fairly predictable information, but it didn't matter all that much since the rawness of the film's pivotal sex scene got me wrapped up into the film before the big reveal even occurred. The sex scene isn't exactly erotic or even pleasant, but the amount of drama and tension it creates is astonishing. The end seemed a "tad" too hopeful for it's own good. With such a bleak film, I guess it had to end with an unnaturally happy ending to make it satisfying to most audiences. It seemed like the film could have ended about 5 minutes before it actually ended and would have be far more satisfying. I could easily see how Jackie's act of vengeance near the end could be off-putting because it's slightly presposterous and it's definately unnecessary. I highly recommend seeing this film.
***1/2 out of ****

Oh Tao and Jeff...

The World(dir. Jia Zhang Ke)
The film's message could be summed up as "this is your brain on capitalism." While that statement makes the film seem preachy and didactic, it's actually rather subtle and intelligent. It's just too long. I was enthralled by the whole thing, but I grew increasingly restless as it went on. It's commentary on how capitalism and globalization can ruin a culture and people's lives was interesting due to the fact that it was handled in a rather subtle way and the message is understandable coming from a man who grew up in and lives in a communist society. The scenes with Tao and Anna were quite lovely. The film's "affair" plot was pretty predictable. The animation seemed rather unnecessary even though it was kind of amusing. The ending was a little too grim and heavy-handed, but the last couple of seconds made it more bearable. This was the first film directed by him I've seen and now I want to check out some more of his work. I recommend.
*** out of ****
The Lookout(dir. Scott Frank)
It was relatively decent. For a caper, it wasn't all that exciting and the robbery was rather mundance. There are some good performances from Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Jeff Daniels, and Matthew Goode. The script was pretty predictable and had some laughably bad dialogue ("I'VE GOT THE POWER!"), but the actors were able to make the film rather compelling despite the flawed material. I'm amazed by how Isla Fisher keeps getting casted as the "cute girl" in movies since she isn't the least bit attractive. The ending was a little too happy, but it was pretty much expected so it didn't seem that bad. I mildly recommend.
**1/2 out of ****

Oh Parker Posey...

Henry Fool(dir. Hal Hartley)
A masterpiece. It's hard to articulate my thoughts on this film. It's easily his most darkest film I've seen and his most Bresson-esque. His other films have Bresson qualities like how the characters act and talk in a fairly deadpan way almost like a comedic version of Bresson's signature non-acting and his characters usually at the end of his films attain a sense of grace. This film seems more Bresson-like mainly due to some shots of hands and body parts that were a staple to Bresson's visual grammar and some of the characters reminding me of some of the characters from his films like Simon Grim reminds me of the main character from Pickpocket, Simon's mother reminds me of Mouchette's mother with her being ambiguously ill, and Pearl definately reminds me of Mouchette. The film's world was also a cruel place much like the world in some of Bresson's films. This film has one of the most bizarrely moving moments I've ever seen. The moment consists of Henry Fool taking a massive dump a la Dumb and Dumber Harry Dunne-style and Parker Posey's character Fay Grim comes in and starts kissing his hand (another Bressonian touch) because he proposed to her. At first, the moment just seemed ridiculous and juvenile with Henry alone shitting on the toilet, but Hartley was able to morph the scene into something awkwardly and amazingly beautiful. Another memorable moment and probably the funniest was when Simon ends up barfing on a woman's bare ass cheek. She was forcing him to kiss her ass so the barfing on seems deserved. It's disgusting yet hilarious. This film deals with art. Henry Fool is a self-proclaimed brilliant struggling writer, but like his name implies, he's in fact a fool. Simon Grim lives a grim life and when Henry comes into his life, he is inspired to write "poetry." Some reviewers including Gene Siskel say the film should have shown Simon's poetry or at least gave some lines because the poetry is so controversial and is a major focus in the narrative, but that would have been just silly. The reactions to the poetry are what important, not the poetry itself. If the audience knew what the poetry was like, they would immediately come up with their own opinion of it. If they weren't left in the dark, the reactions that the audience don't agree with would seem unreasonable especially with the heated labels the poetry receives like pornographic. The narrative is driven by Henry's and Simon's quest to get his work published so the world can see it and cherish it. Henry also has his own work that he wants published once he's finished that he feels will change the world. This is were the foolishness of Henry Fool comes into play. Henry is overly grandiose and pretentious with his artistic endeavor. Everyone that eventually reads his work think it's garbage, but only 2 people in the film read it, which brings another point up: if Simon's work was only read by 2 people and the 2 people disliked the work, would he be in the same place as Henry? Henry could have easily became what Simon becomes if he had someone like himself in his life rallying his work. Hartley hits on this point near the end with Henry switching places with Simon to escape the law and this also hints at the notion that Henry and Simon are equally foolish, it's just that Simon had Henry to inspire him and help show off his work. The end also shows the sacrificial selfless nature of being an artist. Sure, you got to have a little Henry in you to want to make art, but once the work is out there, it's not yours anymore, it's the audience's. Simon takes a beating in this film literally and critically, which hammers the point of having to suffer for your work even further. There's still many layers to this film and I could probably spend even more time writing about it, but I think I've written enough. It's his best film that I have seen. It doesn't have as moving of an ending as Simple Men or Trust, but it's his most consistently great film. The endings in those films made me overlook some of their flaws, while this is practically flawless. I could see how someone thought it went on for too long, but I thought it's pacing and length was pretty much perfect. Gotta see Fay Grim now. Don't be a fool, see Henry Fool.
**** out of ****

Oh Craig T. Nelson...

Blades of Glory(dir. Josh Gordon & Will Speck)
It's not exactly ground-breaking, but it's still fun seeing Craig T. Nelson flex his muscles and show his range as an amazing actor. He needs to be in more movies. I thought it was better than Talladega Nights, but it's definately not in the same league as the comedy masterpiece, Anchorman.
*** out of ****

Oh Charles & Dieter & Yu & Hal & Kirk...

The Ex(dir. Jesse Peretz)
A lot of reviews talk about how it doesn't have the balls to make fun of crippled people, but it's trying to. I don't know. It's seems like this comedy wants to be almost a live-action cartoon like how Scrubs can be, but just doesn't pull it off. It doesn't have the sense of detached playfulness of a Naked Gun or Anchorman, two cherished and unquestionable comedy classics. Zach Braff basically channels his JD character from Scrubs into this relatively unlikeable jerk, who's only mildly likeable due to the fact that he's the only character who hates the jerkiest jerk in the picture, Jason Bateman. Jason Bateman is almost charming as the asshole in the wheelchair, but his character is ultimately not insidious enough to be all that likeable. His most devious pranks are taping over a videotape that could land Braff's character some street cred and putting gay porn on his laptop. Not exactly an evil mastermind. The most memorable character was the father played by Charles Grodin, who makes the movie watchable with his amusingly overly optimistic line readings. The mother played by Mia Farrow seemed like an escaped inmate from the local asylum and wasn't amusing, but creepy and out of place. I don't like stories that have one character that's a jerk that everybody loves except for the hero because they always feel false and contrived especially when the hero isn't that likeable of a guy either. All the most horrible things that happen to Braff's character are usually his fault. Starting a fire. Riding a bike into a car. His character is also a jerk for not taking the blame for some of his actions and terrorizing a kid. It was ultimately watchable, but it wasn't a totally pleasant experience.
** out of ****
Little Dieter Needs to Fly(dir. Werner Herzog)
Dare I say he's a better documentary filmmaker than a narrative one? Dieter Dengler is a charming person, but there's something definately off in the way he describes his story. He seems to be emotionally detached from the tales he tell even though he experienced them and probably the most disturbing aspect is that he almost seems to enjoy telling them. I guess it's good for making conversation being a POW and all, but still feels off. Herzog luckily openly critiques Dengler's detached nature through his narration and it's easy to see why, but if Dengler wasn't emotionally detached from those events in his life, the picture would have either not been made or have not turned out so well. When you see pictures of a young Dengler after being rescued crying, it's almost cathartic due to the present Dengler's almost robot-like nature, which comes to light especially during portions of the film where he does voice-over narration and tries to describe his emotions during some scenes almost as a way to tell the audience that he's still human. The end is emotionally overwhelming. You get a hint of what made Dengler wanted to fly as his Herzog's camera glides over rows and rows of airplanes. It's a truly beautiful cinematic moment. The fact that Herzog updated his film with some footage from Dengler's 2001 funeral shows that he had the upmost respect for the man. Like Dieter, this film flies. It's a masterpiece.
**** out of ****
Hana & Alice(dir. Shunji Iwai)
OhmyNews writes, "While the story is thin and feels stretched over 135 minutes, Iwai's subtle delineation of character and insight into adolescent life makes "Hana and Alice" a film to cherish." I ultimately agree. I might have to rewatch All About Lily Chou-Chou because I have a feeling I was overly critical of it. I wasn't sure of whether to give this film *** or ***1/2 because it was overlong, but after reading some reviews and serious deliberation, I feel it has enough beautiful moments in it's duration to make up for it.
***1/2 out of ****
The Unbelievable Truth(dir. Hal Hartley)
For a debut film, it was impressive. For a Hal Hartley film, it wasn't quite that impressive. It was good, but it's definately not in the league of Trust or Simple Men. This film doesn't feel as emotionally sincere as those pictures especially due to the fact that this film seems to put more significance on it's plot than it's central romance so it's not as hopelessly romantic and beautiful as those two films. It was good, but it's pretty forgettable. It's definately not as bad as Surviving Desire, though.
*** out of ****
The Bad and the Beautiful(dir. Vincente Minnelli)
Dug it up until the third story told by the screenwriter. There's something utterly wrong with a person trying to persuade a man that a guy isn't all that bad when he is partly responsible for killing his wife and when the guy tells him about his role in her death, he tries to justify it by saying she was just a nuisance anyway. That should have been cut out of the script and the film in general since it makes that character ultimately unlikeable for not being sensitive to that character's dislike of the studio head that he is trying to defend especially given the fact that his wife was played by Gloria Grahame. Hubba hubba. Gloria Grahame is miscasted as the interruptive wife because she's too sexy for that type of bit role. It's obvious between this and Ace in the Hole that Kirk Douglas is excellent at playing sons of bitches with a snake-like charm. A climatic scene performed by Douglas in this film is probably the greatest acting I have ever seen in a motion picture ever. The scene afterwards was particularly memorable for the audacity of it. Lana Turner is driving away from Douglas's mansion as an emotional wreck and almost gets in a car accident. The camera is in the car and it keeps rolling even as Turner's character spins car out and practically has an emotional breakdown from almost getting hit by a car and from the event that happened at Douglas's character's mansion. It's a melodramatic moment, but it's also a memorable one. The film wears out it's welcome with it's screenwriter's story because that man has every reason to hate Douglas's character's guts. The ending with the characters thinking about making the picture with his character seems ultimately false due to everybody's emotional baggage, but it could be read as a critique of Hollywood conditioning normal people into greedy bastards. It was still good despite it's flaws.
*** out of ****

Oh Bob from Bottle Rocket & Chris...

Idiocracy(dir. Mike Judge)
It starts off fine with it's concept, but once it hits about the 40 minute mark, it started to become redundant and became a drag. There's something to be said about a comedy with a future world this fully realized, but as the planet earth in the movie became stupider as time went on so did the movie itself. You realize that all the dumb characters are essentially going to be played in a certain way the whole time so there's not much variation to create interest. The president character that was a former wrestler was pretty ingenius among all the bland idiots. The film is, thankfully, on the short side and I think the ending redeems it slightly for it's overt cheesiness. Judge criticizes idiotic behaivor well, but it became repetitive. I slightly recommend.
**1/2 out of ****
I Think I Love My Wife(dir. Chris Rock)
Dare I say I was really liking it until a show-stopping gag? The gag in question is a gag about an erection. The film has other gags that were juvenile, but that one derailed the movie. It didn't derail it completely, but it was hard to get back on track especially with scenes like the sing song finale. Most of the humor in general seemed pretty unnecessary and the film probably would have benefitted if it was just a relatively serious comedy instead of trying to have to make an attempt at being humorous with juvenile antics. How the conflict is resolved is kind of too pat, but as this is a comedy, it's acceptable. I slightly recommend this uneven movie.
**1/2 out of ****

Oh David Lynch...

Inland Empire(dir. David Lynch)
This is my first "whole" experience with Lynch. I've only seen the first two episodes after the pilot of Twin Peaks and I've seen big bits and pieces of Blue Velvet pretty much all the way through so it might technically not be my first experience with Lynch, but still... Knowing this was most likely a bad place to start since even some of the most dedicated Lynch fans didn't know what quite to make of it, I decided to start with it anyways because baby, I don't gradually get in the pool from the shallow end, I jump in the deep end. I'm not going to pretend I understood it because honestly, I don't think that's possible, but I honestly felt I "got" it. The movie really clicked. To overuse the pool metaphor a little more, after jumping in the pool, it had a nice casual cooling effect until I hit the bottom and wondered what happened? Sure, the movie was not nice or casual, but disorienting and totally unpredictable. It's unpredictability was it's greatest asset. This movie was fucking nuts and I was particularly amazed by how random it was up until the end. This is where I felt the movie turned from masterpiece to just near-masterpiece. It felt like the ending was trying to wrap things up nice and neatly even though I don't understand what it was wrapping up. It felt too conclusive for my tastes and the music was also a little on the cheesy side. It turned this disorienting mindfuck of a movie into an almost calm and cheerful one. I wish it stayed nuts the whole time. With that aside, I highly recommend seeing this movie.
***1/2 out of ****

Oh Tony Leung...

Flowers of Shanghai(dir. Hou Hsiao-Hsien)
It had a beautiful look and soundtrack, but was the film as equally as beautiful? Not quite. It definately was boring until the narrative took form. It definately showed a little too many scenes of them playing the drinking game at the table, but the film veers away from that in it's last half hour or so. It wasn't as engaging as it could have been because of it's restraint. It felt detached and cold to a degree, which for a film like Goodbye South, Goodbye makes sense, but here doesn't make that much sense. I guess you could argue that it's detached and cold because of the social code that everybody had to prescribe to back then not allowing people to express their true emotions in a very obvious fashion. The ending felt just right in it's restrained and simple nature. It was definately good, but it definately was no masterpiece either.
*** out of ****

Oh Maggie Cheung...

Clean(dir. Olivier Assayas)
I really liked it's somber tone. It was very relaxing and "mediative." This movie seems more like a showcase for it's actors than it's director, but having not seen any of his other work, I can't be totally sure. I am sure that Maggie Cheung and Nick Nolte give good performances. Actually, I'll say pretty much everybody except the kid give good performances. I thought the ending was just right for this type of story. Biggest flaw? It was too clean. Sorry for the pun, but it just seems like a movie about a recovering drug addict should be a little bit more gritty. The whole sub-plot about trying to get Tricky to convince her father-in-law to give her custody of her son was pretty ridiculous, but it's actually handled well in the film and it made sense at the time. It was really good.
***1/2 out of ****

Oh Kate & Bruno...

Vacancy(dir. Nimrod Antal)
This is a thriller that is actually thrilling. It starts off creepily even if it was predictable. The atmosphere almost had a smutty feel to it like the snuff films that they watch. The film starts to lose it's energy the longer it went on and almost felt repetitive due to it's constrictive setting, but thankfully, the filmmakers decided to keep the movie on the short side (85 mins.) and not keep it going until eventually it lost all it's steam and become an absolute bore. Kate Beckinsale's character acted like an idiot most of the time, which was pretty frustrating. Luke Wilson's character surviving the whole ordeal was pretty ludicrious, but I'm willing to accept it because after all, it's a genre film. Portraying the ordeal as almost an alternative to couple's therapy wasn't all that off-putting because it was totally expected. I thought it was good.
*** out of ****
L'Humanite(dir. Bruno Dumont)
The shock imagery that he displayed in The Life of Jesus compared to some of the stuff in this was relatively tame in comparision. I understand the first shocking image to a certain extent because you could justify that it was showing the audience the ugliness of the crime, but the sex scenes and one particular scene seemed totally unnecessary and just seemed like a director trying to provoke the audience with shock imagery. I don't like that one bit especially with a particular scene almost derailing the whole film because it just seemed so distasteful. The main female character offers her body to the main character and after that incident, a shot of the woman's vagina is shown for a good length of time while the character cries. Some critics said it was to show how the main character views sex after the horrific crime, but that's no excuse for it's gratuitous and distasteful nature. The character wasn't even involved in that scene to make it seem that's what it's purpose was. It was a private moment for that particular character. The main character has some beautiful moments and some off-puttingly awkward ones. The character is an awkward one in the first place, but having him employing a homoerotic way of handling supects just seemed ridiculous especially at the end where he french kisses the man responsible for the horrific crime. Roger Ebert says these scenes are to show the audience that the character is becoming mad because of the crime. I think there is too much emphasis on the crime from most of the reviews I've read. It was probably as or even more horrific for the main character as it was for the audience to have to see, but I don't think his whole life and how he handles people were totally affected by it. The character is slow and almost seems like a grown man that is still at a child's mental and emotional capacity. He is quiet and almost displays a sense of spirituality, but he's no saint. He's an idiot. Critics say he's trying to carry the world's suffering on his shoulders, but is he really? The characters feels like a reject out of a Bresson film. There is also a tidbit thrown around that he used to have a girlfriend and a baby and it's almost used as an excuse for the way he behaves. He just seems like a man stunted not by his experiences in life, but by nature. That doesn't mean he's not an intriguing character, but when he starts doing something as strange as sniffing a suspect's hair and face, it just becomes really awkward and feels totally unnatural in the context of his character. It feels like an attempt to shock the audience. Dumont said in the interview on the DVD that he wants to confront the viewer, but I think there's much subtler ways to do that and I think he actually employs some of the subtler ways in this film, but he also ends up employing overly obvious ways of confronting the audience. The Life of Jesus proved that subtlety was more mysterious and rewarding than being confrontational. It's interesting to listen to Bruno Dumont trying to explain his view on life and film and not being able to really articulate it. It doesn't mean he's a bad director or person just because he's not very articulate on his method or his views on life, but it's interesting coming from a man that was a philosophy teacher, who you would think would be able to articulate his ideas more clearly. I'm not judging the film by his interview, but it kind of makes you think about the film in a different light because he might not be entirely sure of what he is doing, which makes it easier to stomach that he might not realize that his imagery is shocking or gratuitous, but in the context of this film, it seems obvious that he knows exactly what he's doing. It was a mixed bag artistically. The Life of Jesus is definately way better.
**1/2 out of ****

Oh John Travolta...

Wild Hogs(dir. Walt Becker)
The homophobia was in bad taste, but I guess all the jokes and pretty much everything was in bad taste. Not in terms of political correctness, in terms of humor. The only amusing part was seeing John Travolta getting attacked by a crow for no apparent reason. It was a ridiculous moment that was entertaining while all the other jokes don't even feel ridiculous, they just feel mundance and embarrassing in terms of how bad they are. They almost don't seem like their jokes because you question how some screenwriter thought any of them were funny. I wouldn't even think they were jokes if this movie wasn't labelled as a comedy. John Travolta gives an outstandingly bad performance. It wasn't totally dreadful to watch and it wasn't a terribly painful experience, but it definately wasn't a good one either.
*1/2 out of ****

Oh Adrienne Shelly...

Waitress(dir. Adrienne Shelly)
This is definately a girl's movie. There's no denying that. It's a chick flick complete with it's happily ever after ending, but unlike other chick flicks, there's no man in the main character's life at the end. It's almost a girly cutesy version of Knocked Up. It's cute moments like her making pies were kind of too cutesy for my tastes, but there are some whimsical romantic moments like her doctor that she is having an affair with holding her because she is sad and needs some affection. It was definately a heart-tugging moment. I would have probably given this ***1/2 if it just ended there, but it kept going. It's refreshing that she doesn't end up with either her husband or her doctor, but it's still sort of unsatisfying. The most off-putting aspect was just it's overly cute moments. There's a sequence that shows her smiling because she is happy since she is having an affair with her doctor that almost verges on being scary. This definately felt like Hal Hartley-lite at some moments like a conversation between her and her doctor in his office felt like it was directly lifted out of a Hal Hartley movie. It wasn't as annoyingly cute as Miss Potter, but it still was kind of annoying in it's cuteness.
*** out of ****

Oh Monica Vitti...

L'Ecclise(dir. Michelangelo Antonioni)
Since he died recently and I've had an interest in seeing his work, I decided to check this out. I was hestitant about seeing his work because usually I hear the word "boring" to describe it. This film surprised me because it wasn't boring at first and was actually really compelling, but this director obviously doesn't know when to stop with some scenes and go on to the next. The stock market scene when Vittoria is not present and the end come to mind. I feel the theme that this film is supposedly dealing with doesn't get examined as thoroughly compared to how it gets examined in a film by Tsai Ming-liang, who obviously was influenced by him. I can see the detachment especially when it becomes almost painfully obvious in a scene where Piero is more concerned about the shape of his car than the dead body in it. It's kind of superficial in it's examination. Sure, this must have been ground-breaking at the time, but it seems kind of ridiculous to show the rich as stereotypically out of touch with humanity and more concerned with material goods. I think the greatest aspect of this film is the sense of impeding doom that is felt throughout most of the picture. During the end, you almost expect a nuke to go off since it feels like a horror film with it's score and images of vast open streets. The newspaper shown at the end must have had some importance since the subtitles translated it for the audience. It could be Antonioni saying that detachment can cause nuclear war to break out in the days of the Cold War, which is a sound judgement, but it feels too far-reaching especially since the film has a relatively intimate and contained story. The film doesn't really adhere to a typical narrative structure, but you still get a sense of moving to some point. The end was a little much in terms of length, but I can see how individuals could think it was bold because it is. I just can't say it was entirely successful. Monica Vitti, while not really that sexy especially compared to someone like Claudia Cardinale, makes detachment almost seem fashionable with her performance. I hated the sound of her laugh, though. It was good and I will check out some of his other work.
*** out of ****

Oh Makika Esumi...

Pistol Opera(dir. Seijun Suzuki)
He is fucking nuts. A poet of insanity. This film mesmerized me up until a little bit before the end where two fairly monologues took me out of the experience. The main actress was easily the best out of the film by being bad ass and amazingly sexy. The underage nudity was kind of off-putting, but it wasn't displayed in an erotic way so I can't be too offended by it. The ending is rather abrupt, but it fits in with the rest of the insanity. I almost feel like I'm underrating this and I'm pretty certain that the next time I watch it, I will feel it deserves ****, but for now, it gets
***1/2 out of ****

Oh David and 23...

16 Blocks(dir. Richard Donner)
The movie was good up until the bus situation. It could have ended there with the bad cops winning and the good cop losing and I would have been a happy camper, but Mos Def's character had to get back on the bus and ruin it. You realize at that moment that good guys will come up on top and the bad guys will take the fall. You also get taught the message that people can change which is taken to an extreme with it's cheesy ending. David Morse gives a good performance as the main bad cop. He has more charisma than either of the leads. Mos Def's voice gets annoying after awhile, but he has a sweet scene with a little girl and Bruce Willis competently plays his role. It was decent.
**1/2 out of ****
The Number 23(dir. Joel Schumacher)
The fact that it takes it's plot seriously is easily the worst aspect of it. It's just so ridiculous seeing the number 23 everywhere. As you get point of view shots of all the 23's he sees, you almost want to burst out laughing, but it isn't ridiculous enough to pass off as camp, which makes the film dull. For some reason, I liked the ending, while most reviewers did not. I felt it made the insanity seem kind of grounded in terms of what happens. The twist is clunky and preposterous, but it makes his insanity feels less like insanity and actually gives the audience the ability to sympathize with the characters mildly since their obsession wasn't a complete waste of time. It's definately not good, but it's definately not as bad as something like Premonition.
** out of ****

Oh McLovin...

Superbad(dir. Gret Mottola)
It wasn't as good as Knocked Up. The cop characters are a little much and they milk the McLovin joke for all it's worth. It was really raunchy and made American Pie look family-friendly. I definately recommend it because it has some really funny moments, but don't expect it to be hilarious the whole time. The whole idea that these guys grew up over one night just seemed a little preposterous, but it's a comedy so I forgive it.
*** out of ****

Oh Ryan and Shohei...

Fracture(dir. Gregory Hoblit)
As a mystery, it's not very mysterious and as a thriller, it's not very thrilling. As a movie, it's also not that compelling. It starts off fine, but it continually becomes increasingly dull and predictable. It's predictability isn't a crime against cinema, but it just seems like the film tries to prolong reaching it's inevitable "good" guys win conclusion.
** out of ****
Vengeance is Mine(dir. Shohei Imamura)
I like how upfront he is in displaying the character. He doesn't really expect audiences to be rooting for the guy, but the character does have his moments. I felt relatively detached throughout the film because it's hard to really sympathize or even understand the character. I guess that's the point. His romance with a woman that runs a inn was easily the best part of the film and that character brought some humanity and warmth to the picture. It's a shame what happens. The end was rather strange and awkward. This was definately good and I think I should probably rewatch this in the future. Definately interested in seeing some of his other films.
*** out of ****

Oh Point Break...

Hot Fuzz(dir. Edgar Wright)
When the film turns into pretty much a mindless action movie, it is hilarious. Before, it had some funny moments, but it's not nearly as good as what it eventually turns into. It takes too long to get to the good part, but it's still really good and funny. Not as consistently funny as Knocked Up and the blood and gore, which some might find funny, was kind of nasty.
***1/2 out of ****

Oh Lena & Vanilla Ice & Jesus & Pauly...

300(dir. Zack Snyder)
Homophobic and homoerotic? You bet. This film's idea of manliness is defending a society with such good wholesome morals as throwing babies in pits to die if they won't make good warriors because of deformities or some visible sign of weakness. The film's look isn't all that great. There's been a lot of hoopla about the film's look, but it's visually uninteresting when compared to a film like Sin City. The most visually interesting aspect was one of the few non-computer generated aspects of the film and that was the main actress, Lena Headey. A breath of fresh air in this sausage-fest of a movie. The film throws around words like freedom and slavery to add weight to their cause, but you don't really care because the acting and dialogue is bad. It would have been fine if the movie was trying to be campy, but the film takes it's idea of masculinity too seriously and expects people to buy into it. Probably the most manly scene doesn't even concern any of the 300 spartans. It concerns Lena Headey's character and a politician. There's actually spontaniety and excitement to that scene that is seriously lacking in the rest of the film. The action is dull because of the extreme amount of slow motion intended to make all the teenage boys in the theater to go "that's hella sick, bro." Snyder makes Mel look like a minimalist when it comes to use of slow motion. It can't even deliver on the violence either because of the computer generated blood looking extremely fake. I'm sure, some could make an argument that it's stylish, but it's still shitty looking especially when the rest of the film is bland and fairly one-note. The color that you'll come away with is gold because the sun always lights the scene in a dull gold shade. I actually liked Xerxes more than any of the spartans because he was flamboyant and actually had personality. It was obvious that the director intended for all the male viewers to view Xerxes as a freak because he's pretty much a drag queen, but I find him more sympathetic than Leonidas or his men because he's accepting of the hunchback character. The hunchback's betrayal was probably supposed to be some huge blow to the audience and I could imagine the audience wishing Leonidas would have killed him, but he has way more personality than any of the 300 spartans. This movie sucked.
*1/2 out of ****
TMNT(dir. Kevin Munroe)
No Shredder + No Personality + No Vanilla Ice = No Good
*1/2 out of ****
The Life of Jesus(dir. Bruno Dumont)
I like how he displays these asshole characters as pretty much assholes. I think the title applies to the Arab character because he's easily the most sympathetic guy in the movie and well, he dies. He adds a sense of humanity to the picture that the film was lacking. The shots of actual penetration during the sex scenes were unnecessary. Along with seeing Freddy's mom's vagina after she got out of the bath, which amounted to about 2 seconds of the film and seemed as if the editor just didn't cut in time or something. The ending was moving in a sense, but you could picture it having a stronger emotional impact if you were able to sympathize with Freddy's character more.
***1/2 out of ****
Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters(dir. Paul Schrader)
This is the way you make a film about an artist. You show bits of his life and you show bits of his work. It shows how his life shaped his work and it shows how his work shaped him. Phillip Glass's score is amazing. This film would have been amazing if a moment near the end didn't feel so ridiculous and akward. It's easily the best film I've seen by him so far.
***1/2 out of ****

Oh Chevy Chase...

Fletch(dir. Michael Ritchie)
The first movie I've seen with Chevy Chase where he's actually funny. His other movies usually rely on ridiculous situations to make him "seem" funny, but he's actually funny in this. The movie took it's plot a little too seriously and the actress playing Fletch's love interest made Chevy look like a good actor. It was good.
*** out of ****

Oh Get Off My Plane!...

Air Force One(dir. Wolfgang Peterson)
It was dumb and it took itself relatively seriously, but it was still fun in it's dumb and uninspired way. The "Get Off My Plane!" line is what attracted me to the film and was screaming to be parodied by YTMND. I might be growing soft, but I can't really knock a dumb action movie for being a dumb action movie unless it attached itself to an issue like say the diamond trade in Africa. Harrison Ford for President.
*** out of ****

Oh Jackie Chan...

Rush Hour 3(dir. Brett Ratner)
I came into the theater expecting to hate it, but somehow, I came out of the theater liking it. Was it as stupid as I was expecting? No, it was stupider. There's something brilliant about Jackie Chan swinging on a swing and singing a romantic duet with Chris Tucker. A lot of the humor is just so ridiculous that you can't believe it made the final cut. One example: Lee and Carter get in a fight and after the fight, they decide to order the other's favorite food. Carter gets Chinese food and Lee gets fried chicken and sweet potatoe pie. It's not exactly funny because it's so stupid, but you sit there amazed by it. It's stupidity is mesmerizing. This film has two important messages: don't let Roman Polanski give you a rectal examination and French flags make good parachutes.
*** out of ****

Oh Renée, Mel, and Shirley...

Miss Potter(dir. Chris Noonan)
Too cutesy. The sad moments in this film could possibly pass off as the happy moments in another bleaker film. The characterization was shallow, but the film was still kind of whimsical in it's overtly cute way. It seems almost drunk on it's cuteness. How cute.
**1/2 out of ****
Apocalypto(dir. Mel Gibson)
I really don't know what to say about this film. It feels wrong, but I got some enjoyment out of it. Mel obviously isn't a very subtle director and obviously loves to fuck around with slow mo a lot. The characters are all pretty over the top and while some will think the violence is disgusting, it seems almost comic-book-ish. It reminds me of a videogame like Mortal Kombat and if Mel ever played that, he was probably a fan of Kano's fatality. The violence is just there. The cinematography looks TV-ish probably due to using digital. The jungle is probably lush and beautiful, but the film doesn't really make it look all that beautiful. The New World? This is not. It's like a mindless action movie masquerading as a National Geographic documentary. It's almost scary that people actually watch this and feel like they're learning about Mayan culture. The film has a mad genius to it in terms of it's scope and attention to detail. I slightly recommend?
**1/2 out of ****
24 Hour Party People(dir. Michael Winterbottom)
I'm a fan of Joy Division. Just wanted to get that out of the way. One review I've read concerning this film talked about how it doesn't really give you a completely truthful view of the era. I'd understand that especially how nonsensical the film can become especially with it's more fantastical scenes like pidgeons dying for no apparent reason and a UFO sighting re-enacted. These scenes, thankfully, have a very artificial feel so it never feels like it's totally trying to interwine these events with the storyline, but makes them seem like playful excursions. The film as a whole is playful in terms of it's self-reflexive nature. The style is excessive, but so are the characters on display. I really liked it.
***1/2 out of ****

Oh Harry...

Fool for Love(dir. Robert Altman)
An engaging mess. It's pretty obvious that this was a play before it turned into a movie. I'd imagine Bug is similar to this with it's white trash hotel setting. The end is compelling to an extent, but it's a little too crazy for it's own good. I recommend.
*** out of ****

Oh Jean & Sterling...

Decoy(dir. Jack Bernhard)
Jean Gillie is excellent in this as the femme fatale. Everybody does a competent job. Most memorable scene is easily Jean running over her thug "boyfriend." The story doesn't make a whole lot of sense especially concerning how the doctor was able to survive two bullet wounds and make it back to San Francisco and Jean's character developing an evil cackle was pretty outlandish. It was solid enough to recommend.
*** out of ****
Crime Wave(dir. Andre de Toth)
Sterling Hayden is the man. I wish he was the main character instead of that other guy. Pretty much everybody else does a better job than him. You can't really get involved with the story because you can't really sympathize with his plight. The actor doesn't do a good job, but everybody else does. The end was actually pretty exciting probably because Sterling came back into the picture. Charles Bronson was in it so that's always a plus. It was disappointing, but it was still good.
*** out of ****

Oh Freddy Wiseman...

Hospital(dir. Frederick Wiseman)
The mundane and the beautiful. There are some "scenes" that take too long, but that's fine because in order for this to be a complete portrait of hospital life, you must show the monotony that doctors and nurses must experience since it is their work and all work can become monotonous. It's heart-breaking to see a man being so embarassed and ashamed for going to the doctor to see if he has testicular cancer that he almost bursts into tears. There are a lot memorable moments that Wiseman allows the viewer to see. One memorable "scene" is where a man who has taken an unknown pill fears that he is going to die. A user on IMDb said the "scene" was unnecessary because it is used for comedic effect, but I was honestly scared that the guy might have died even if the doctor kept reassuring him that he wasn't going to. His fear is so real that you can't help, but wonder if he will in fact die or not. He then throws up in a room, which is disgusting to see, but it is necessary to see it. My favorite moments were when loved ones of the patients came to see them and started showing affection towards them. One lovely, but horrifying scene is of a man who has been stabbed in the throat reaching out towards his lover's hand to hold it. Another moment that is both heart-breaking and uplifting is of a daughter seeing her mother as doctors try to restore her health and she goes over and strokes her head, kisses her on the chin with tears in her eyes. It's moments like these that provide warmth and reassurance that we're a flawed species, but we're still good at heart. This film shows that we all need individuals to help us out sometimes even if we're ashamed or too proud to get this help. The only Wiseman film that has rubbed me the wrong way was High School because it felt like he was critical of the people on screen and that just seems sleazy for a documentarian to do. It's easy to show the worst of people, but it's definately harder and more rewarding to show the beauty of an ugly situation. Amazing stuff.
**** out of ****

Oh Nick Nolte...

Affliction(dir. Paul Schrader)
This film doesn't feel fully developed. Pretty much all the stories and relationships feel underdeveloped. I don't really see how his father's actions when he was a child has any effect on the present. I'm sure it scarred his character, but Nolte performs in a way that doesn't seem like his actions are propelled by his past. His actions seem like they stem from his present situation with his ex-wife and child and the hunting accident. I'm sure someone could explain to me those are just ways to release his frustration from all the pain his father inflicted on him, but his flashbacks are not nearly as horrific as what his character ends up doing. His father is pretty much a monster and Nolte's character is pretty much nuts especially at the end. The end was oddly moving probably due to the fact that the imagery becomes hauntingly beautiful for the first time in the film. Watching Nick Nolte drink his alcohol in front of a window with a farm on fire is amazing within itself. Willem Dafoe's narration feels completely unnecessary especially since this is Nolte's character's movie, not his character's. I might rewatch this at a later date.
**1/2 out of ****

Oh George and Scarlett...

Ocean's Thirteen(dir. Steven Soderbergh)
The first one was cool and suave. The second was I don't know since I didn't see it. The third one was dumb and clumsy. It's dumbness and cluminess was probably what was entertaining about it. It's attempts at cool were the weak portions of the film like it's use of split screen in an extended sequence. It really doesn't enhance the experience, it just felt like an uncool film trying so hard to be cool. The film's best portions were the most ridiculous. A revolution at an Mexican dice factory was ridiculously entertaining and seeing Brad Pitt and George Clooney crying to Oprah was another highlight. The film is pretty visually uninteresting, which made the stretches that weren't comedic drag. It's definately not as good as the first one and it definately needed more Elliot Gould, but it was still fun nonetheless.
*** out of ****
Scoop(dir. Woody Allen)
A light, fun romp. I don't really understand the critical reaction to this film. I guess Match Point is an easier film to praise just because it was serious and didn't feel like a Woody Allen film so you could easily state he was growing, but that film was surprisingly underwhelming and it was pretty much a retread of the same thematic territory that was in Crimes and Misdemeanors, which is much better in it's handling of said thematic territory. This film isn't deep. It's just a lot of fun, which is good enough for me.
***1/2 out of ****

Oh Cate & Hal & Stanley...

Somersault(dir. Cate Shortland)
This movie has some scenes that are almost laughably bad and they concern Heidi when she gets mad. The first one is at a restaurant and she is mad at her "boyfriend" for not knowing if she is his girlfriend or not so she decides to eat some chiles. That'll show him. Another scene concerns her and her friend at the gas station mart where she yells out of frustration. There's another scene that felt completely unnecessary. She goes out in the cold naked trying desperately to get her "boyfriend" to come back in the house. I'm not complaining about the nudity just how it's handled. Why would a girl go out in the cold winter naked? I don't think being drunk really excuses it. This film has it's flaws, but it's definately gorgeous to look at. The actress plays most of her scenes perfectly and is beautiful in a bland sort of way. The character doesn't seem like the most intelligent person, but you still take interest in her story. This film almost seems like it was trying to be Morvern Callar, but unlike Morvern Callar, who is mysterious and bewildering, Heidi just seems like a blank slate. The ending redeems the faults I had with the film with it's simplicity and serenity. It's definately one to check out even if not all the scenes completely work.
***1/2 out of ****
Surviving Desire(dir. Hal Hartley)
The version I saw didn't have 6 minutes of it, but still, I got a good idea of how the film is. It's good, but definately not up to par with his other work probably due to the fact that it felt rushed. It also felt too lovey dubby. Yeah. It was good.
*** out of ****
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner(dir. Stanley Kramer)
This film is not graceful at all about it's subject. I guess I have to kind of respect that it is so upfront, but did every conversation really need to feel like a speech about racial inequality and how interracial relationships shouldn't be that big of a deal. I agree with what it's trying to say, but it's ridiculous in how repetitive it gets to the point where you lose all interest in the film. It keeps banging you over the head with it's message that you almost want to reject whatever it's saying. It was OK.
** out of ****

Oh Sinitta...

Last Life in the Universe(dir. Pen-Ek Ratanaruang)
The lead actress is quite foxy. It's not entirely successful artistically. The actresses switch in the middle of the film rather slyly, but it sounds much better on paper than how it is in the actual film. Probably due to the fact that I found the actress playing Noi more attractive than Nid. Near the end, the picture seems to fall into place. The film's biggest problem is that it doesn't quite achieve that dream-like feel it wants to have, but the end was definately whimsical and romantic.
***1/2 out of ****