skip to main |
skip to sidebar
For those of you who know Anais Nin then you will probably know to expect a lot of sex when seeing this movie. For others, prepare yourself. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I actually really liked this film, though if you go to rottentomatoes, you will see a score of 0%. While I still would prefer reading Nin to seeing her on the screen, I believe her charm and poetry is captured for the most part in the film adaption. While their is a lot of sex, I don't think it ever reaches the point of being unnecessary or purely for shock. You pass throught the film like a dream, meeting characters along the way and then seeing them drift away, only to eventually be shattered by the start of WWII. In a similiar fashion to Moulin Rouge, this film paints a time period that is very difficult to do, and won I personally would adore to visit, if not for the start of WWII. I give this film a 8/10, for being the scandelous baby of The Dreamers and The Notebook.
8/10
After discovery that their was a documentary film about James Nagthwey, my favorite photographer of all time, I knew that I had to immidetly watch that film and expected that I would goble up the film quickly and be wanting more. I mean wouldn't you expect that, considering that I know next to nothing about the photographer besides his pictures and am obsessed w/ him enough to buy his $100 book called Inferno. Sadly the film didn't meet my expectations, which I believe I set fairly low considering I was willing to kill for any info about him. The focus of the documentary at times seemed very unclear, which again confused me since what else would the film be about then James Naghtwey. At times people were interviewed whose relation to James was unclear and spoke about topics which seemed unrelated to the movies focus. Other shots ran on far too long, as if the director knew the movie was running short and decided to gain another 5 minutes by adding silenceand shots of people "deep in thought". Nonetheless there were several moments that were very rewarding as the film had footage from a small camera that was attached to Nacthwey's own camera, this enabled the viewer to see what he was seeing and how quickly he had to take the pictures he was talking and change the shutter and focus. Other powerful moments allowed you to see him taking and developing several of his most famous shots. Other moments in this film though held it back from being the insightful documentary I thought it would be. Everything stayed too much on the surface, and rarely delved into the important issuues like how Nacthwey deals with the horrors he sees everyday and is what he doing really making a diffference. I give this film a 6/10 for people who are a fan of Nacthwey's work, but a 5/10 for those who aren't familiar with his work.
5/10
The film is satire of what films are supposed to be and the elements which make up the films we know and love (similiar in many ways to Scary Movie, but a lot smarter). From this base, the film progresses to tell a noirish type story of how Robert Downey Jr.'s character winds up in LA and how he gets involved in trying to solve a murder mystery alongside Val Kilmer. While this duo may not scream out great acting, I was more then suprised by the performances they brought to this film. Hands down this movie is just entertaining, funny and intelligent about the choices it makes. My only big quib w/ that the films self acknowledgment of itself seemed to be inconsistent, arising to interupt the story when there was a joke to be made, yet completely dissapearing at other moments when it was less convienent to have an all-knowing narrator, which held the film back from a 9. I give this film an 8/10.
8/10
Documentaries are not often my cup of tea and are something I find more difficult to evaluate then narrative films. The film delves into the topic of sexual abuse and the following cover up peformed by the catholic church in reference to one priest in particular, Oliver O'Grady. The film like many documentaries today, shocks and scares, the audience with the horrific truth. Though unlike most documentaries I believe it does do a good job showing both sides of a topic that in the media, would probably only gain one perspective. While the film doesn't glorify what O'Grady has done, it does give him a chance to talk and tell his side of the story and reveals his own troubled childhood with sexual abuse. I give this film an 7/10, since it showed two sides of the argument, but occassionaly dragged and pushed the drama farther than was necessary to communicate the films message.
7/10
Robert Altman's final film is unfortunately the only film I've yet to see by him, though I imagine that will soon change. Old auteurs making films can often be the kiss of death, just look at anything antonioni has done since the mid-80's, but here Altman still has it. The movie tells the story of a live radio show's final show and has a homey, david lynch type feel to it, never thought I'd say that. It has a spectacular cast and doesn't try to push them too far or do too much with them. One of my favorite things about the movie is that you realize you are watching one night of a radio show that has been on for 30 odd year, you realize you are only seeing a piece of everyone's life. This movie is an example of a movie that can leave things unwrapped at the end and succeed, because we aren't supposed to know their character's lives, just one special day in their live. I give this movie an 7/10, because Kevin Kleine has never been so fucking funny.
7/10
Coming out at the same time as The Prestige, the movie theatres last fall were crammed with magicial movies. The Illusionist tells the tale of an ill-fated childhood romance that is rekindled between E. Norton and J. Biel in their adulthood. The film has fair acting and does a very good job of setting the mood for the Viennese culture which uses magic as an escape from their problems. That is unfortunately about all it does well. The story jumps way too quickly when Norton and Biel meet again turning their innocent childhood love, in no time into akward sex. From here the movies builds too its far too predictable ending, in which they explain everything you could've guessed, but none of the things which you were confused about. Like how does he make those dead boys appear? The movie should have either left all the magic unexplained or explained everything. I give this movie a generous 4/10 for Norton's Giamatti's and Sewell's performances.
4/10
(Spolier Alert) While the original is a classic, this one isn't exactly there. W/ Danny Boyle and Alex Garland Executively Producing, the eerie vision of the original movie is kept, yet there are problems in the story. Most of my issues with the film are instances where itchooses to be too dramatic. Instances of this are the fathers "knowledgable" stalking of his kids, the main soldier's choice to leave his post and escort the british citizens and the ending where they had to show you the eiffel tower. Besides these flaws, a few other holes in the story and many parts which pushed the level of believability (something which I prided the first film), for the most part I believe the original vision of the first film was kept. Also as prevelant or more prevelant than in the first film are the global parallels that exists in both film. One of a few horror sequals that is worthy of using a title similiar to to that of the original. I give this movie a 6/10.
6/10
Emilo Estevez writes, directs and acts in Bobby along side an all-star cast that is too lengthy to fit in this 1,000 character space. Anyone who goes into watching the film expecting to see a film about Bobby Kennedy, like my mom, will be suprised. This is a movie about a fixed moment in time. While this is at times very interesting since the movie isn't trying to capture people's outlook on life on a vague period of time like "the 60's", at the same point things run thin at points and there are too many characters involved who are all very shallow, unconnected, difficult to keep track of and difficult to determine their signicance. While the end of the end of the movie does help to connect the characters more it is too little too late. One is also left at the end wondering how much is actually true and how much is part of Estevez imagination. I give this movie a 5/10, for its weird drug scenes.
5/10
Alfonoso Cuaron is a director I have loved from his independent foreign work as the director of Y Tu Mama Tambien (2001) to his more commercial work as Harry Potter Prizoner of Azkaban (2004). This work is no exception as he again balances the line between commercial work with an independent flair similiar to what he did with Harry. In Children Cuaron pulls off some brilliantly long take shots like the opening and the dramatic camera in the car chase scene which must have taken forever to film. The film takes an interesting approach and uses these extended takes to create a documentary type feel which brings you into this somewhat futeristic world. CGI is also effectively used throughout the film with the stand out achievement being the effects used to create the baby...(wait have you seen this film...yet now i feel bad if you haven't seen this movie though i think you have...)...if you haven't um...i won't spoil anything...the acting is also superb. The problems I have though are with the story and the characters. Even with everything Cuaron does I still find it difficult to get into this world which really I don't think should be difficult to get into based on the trick Cuaron uses and the fact that it isn't very far in the future...I think we aren't given enough background information to see how such a future could come about. This lack of background I think also extends over to my appreciation of the characters which seem like fleshed out characters without a deep history. I give the movie an 8/10.
8/10
