THE CONVERSATION

In between Coppola's The Godfather (1972) and The Godfather Part II (1974) is when the brilliant director turned out this interesting work. The film stars Gene Hackman (Harry Caul) as a surveillance expert who is hired to record a conversation between two individuals and deliver the recorded conversation to an anonymous source. While the conversation he winds up recording sounds rather mundane and normal, as the film progresses Harry begins to become paranoid that the tape will be used to harm those whom he recorded. The film moves at a slow, though fitting pace that manages to build and keep the intensity of the situation throughout its length. The characters and plot are also both compelling and contain depth that isn't found in your typical modern day espionage thriller which rely more on action then the natural tension which such a situation produces. For all the positives I feel that the films leaves me wanting more. Since it moves at such a slow pace we are allowed to become immersed in the work that Harry is doing, yet still never really crack through the very hard shell of his character. Personally I feel that there is some fat in relations to the convention he goes to that could be trimmed off in exchange for more depth about the woman he is involved with or the curious one night stand he has. While the story the film is trying to tell is interesting, I am personally more compelled by the events in Harry's life that made him the person he is today. I give this film a 7/10, because I will always have a soft spot for a Gene Hackman film.

7/10

THE CONVERSATION TRAILER

Pierrot Le Fou

Made at the cusp between Jean Luc-Godard's carefree experimental period and his political period, Pierrot le fou (1965) is an important work for both cinema and Godard's career. Like Godard's early experimental films, this work reads as a cluttered collage of moments with varying degrees of narrative glue to hold them together. At times this can be trying since there is certainly less narrative glue in this work then in prior works such as Une femme est une femme (1961) or Bande à part (1964). Even the crisp memorable moments that I identify with early Godard works aren't as potent in this effort. The politics of the film though were carefully intertwined and less in-yer-face then Godard's later works which I appreciated. A carefully line between politics and fun was walked in the film that I always feel is lacking in Godard's later uber-political films. Also as usual, Jean-Paul Belmondo and Anna Karina gave performances that could be the dictionary definition of cool and helped the film keep moving . Overall, while I wasn't too keen on the film I do think it is an important work since it documents a large transition in Godard's work and therefore can be useful in informing us why and how Godard's work changed. I give this film a 6/10, because each of Godard's early works between 1960-66 is a unique lover. Somedays you are in the mood for rebellion, while other days you just want to lie in bed all day long. Without this film there would be a diminished range of "lovers" that Godard tried to capture and that would just be a tragedy.

6/10

PIERROT LE FOU TRAILER

BOTTLE SHOCK

Don't you love it when it when really interesting and memorable stories are made bland and predictable? Sadly, Bottle Shock (2008) accomplishes this in its telling of the story of the Judgment of Paris or the Paris Wine Tasting of 1976. Now, I'm a food/wine/beer junky, so for those of you who don't know the story of the Judgment of Paris, it's a truly fascinating tale. Steven Spurrier, a British wine connoisseur, organized a wine tasting in Paris, France in 1976 in which he asked French wine snobs - I mean, critics - to blindly taste several French and American wines and declare both a best white and red wine. At this time, not only were French wines thought to be untouchable, but American wines were thought to be sub-table wine quality. Therefore you can imagine how earth-shattering it was to the wine world when a panel of French judges declared both an American white and red winners of the tasting. Eventually this would lead to the acceptance of American wines in Europe, as well as a domino effect of wineries opening in South Africa, Australia, and South America. Not only was wine not big in America 35 years ago, but you certainly couldn't go in to your local liquor store and purchase a bottle of Yellowtail. Ok, so now that I've got you hyped up for the amazing story of the film, prepare to be disappointed by what feels like a made for TV film. In typical fashion none of the actors are huge film stars, but you recognize them from something, like Bill Pullman (Independence Day), Chris Pine (Star Trek), Alan Rickman, Freddy Rodriguez, Eliza Dushku and Danny DeVito even has a small cameo. One of the best ways to sum up my feelings about the film is that it has cookie cutter characters and tells the story in cookie cutter format, yet several times the film weirdly veers away from its mold only to jump back into it without explanation. The best example in the film is when the main character's girl interest falls for his best friend instead of for him. Based on how predictable the film had been so far, I was wide-eyed and eager to see what was going to happen next since this turn of events was so unexpected. What happens? The girl falls for the main character 20 minutes later without any mention or conclusion of her affairs with her previous lover. Oh, and the main character and his friend still get along fine. There are several more instances like this throughout the film where plot lines aren't fully explained, and the viewer is left wondering if the filmmaker actually watched a finished cut of his film before declaring it complete. Besides these complaints, the film works its magic to dumb down this particularly interesting story to what should have been a made for TV movie instead of an actual theatrical release. I give this film a 5/10, for the fact that the film has a great quote by Galileo in it.

"Wine is sunlight held together by water."

5/10

BOTTLE SHOCK TRAILER

ANTICHRIST

Lars von Trier has never been one to steer clear of controversy, instead deciding to embrace it with a pair of brass knuckles in one hand and a katana blade in the other. Von Trier's films are always raw and unrestrained, which can work beautifully as in his devastating effort Dancer in the Dark (2000), or be too overbearing for my taste like Dogville (2004) and its sequel Manderlay (2005). Two things you can always be sure of in his works is blatant misogyny and a film that will forcefully submerge you into a new world. Antichrist (2009), starring Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg, holds true to these von Trier staples creating a bleak and horrifying world which comes out of the tragic death of Dafoe and Gainsbourg's child in the opening minutes of the film. The death of their child causes Gainsbourg to fall into deep depression, which leads Dafoe, a psychiatrist, to decide that a trip to their summer cottage in the woods is the escape they both need. Without giving too much of the plot away, their trip into the woods reveals the evil in nature and in their (human) nature. The way von Trier frames and examines the "evil" of nature is particularly well done and incorporates the use of images which, by themselves, are just part of nature (deers giving birth to dead fawns), yet in the context of the film become haunting and foreshadowing. The first 2/3rds of the film creates a world that we are immersed in, even though we know so little about it. We never learn either of the main character's names, only know the location of their summer cottage as Eden, and watch as Dafoe slowly works through psychiatric tests and exercises with Gainsbourg to help cure her of her depression. Sadly, the last 1/3rd of this film reminds me a lot of Sunshine (2007), in that the film descends into pointless, unexplained, and unjustified violence. In the filmmakers' defense, endings are never easy, but I am dumbfounded to see two similar film that spend a majority of their time slowly and articulately discussing philosophical issues descend to nothing short of cannibalism. Well, I guess the next time I have a conversation with Von Trier or Danny Boyle (Sunshine's director) I'll have to give them a copy of Bergman's Persona, which did it right. I give this film a 6 out of 10 because the cinematography and CG was shimmering and beautiful, but in the end... well, the ending killed it.

6/10

ANTICHRIST TRAILER

UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG

French new wave cinema at its best. This is a musical opera (all the lines are sung, but in a more musical songy way then opera-esque). The plot is nothing complex, man meets girl, man gets girl pregnant, man leaves for war, man returns and girl has moved on. What the narrative does with this simple story is exquisite though. It really is saying a lot when I say this film doesn't play to cliches. Ok so the basic storyline I have written may sound cliche, but the film doesn't fall into those cliche ditches that narratives have become oh so comfortable with. Also the films novel use of color, music and singing keep this film interesting, entertaining, heartfelt and beautiful to the last drop. I give Umbrellas of Cherbourg a 8/10, because I think the ending a lone will be something I never forget.

8/10

OLD JOY

A simple film that consists of a director, writer and team of actors who I don't know at all. Simple shouldn't be thought of a negative though and in fact is what really won me over. All the film does is tell the story of two friends who haven't seen each other in many years, perhaps almost a decade, who reconnect for a short camping journey. There really is no more plot then that. They don't get into the woods and have a homosexual romance or even get attacked by some weird forest monster. The story is so simple that it is something that one day down the line all of us will run into if we haven't yet, which is why the film is so perfect. Everyone knows they have friends who they have fallen out of contact with and this film documents what happens when people reconnect with those individuals. Perhaps one of you has succeeded and one has failed, one has followed their dreams and one has sold out to the man. Whatever the case is it is an experience each one of us will likely face one day and while nothing dramatic is happening on the exterior, most of the time the interior drama is endless. What to say? What you remember? I give Old Joy a 9/10, for documenting life and nothing else, but coming a little short in some departments. At only 90 minutes the film leaves too many areas unexplored.

9/10

RESCUE DAWN

If you run into anyone who says the movie was too slow, there wasn't enough action or there wasn't enough of a story, then I think they have missed the point. This isn't like any Vietnam movie I have seen before. All this movie is about is people getting captured and trying to escape, yet somehow it leaves out one of the most common things depicted in Vietnam War movies which is the physical torture scenes. Honestly the film doesn't need them and benefits greatly from their omission. Instead Herzog makes you watch something even more painful. We are subjected to watching the main character, played by Christian Bale, disintegrate in front of your eyes. The amount of weight he lost for the Machinist, added for Batman, lost for this and then added again for Batman must be ridiculous. No one should ever have the right to say Bale isn't dedicated to his profession. I give this movie an 7/10, since it certainly won't be everyones cup of tea, though those that can bare it should got lost in the jungle with Herzog and Bale.

7/10

SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE

Historically inaccurate yes. But that isn't what we have come to see in this film. Instead you get a unique love story, a fairy tale. Something that paints you a picture and perhaps gives you new insight into Shakespeare. I feel like while this isn't obviously one of those new modern adaptations of Shakespeare like Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet (1996), in many ways this film does a better job of relating Shakespeare to a modern audience that may feel distanced by his work. It gives the non-Shakespeare fan, concrete (though non-historically correct) proof that Shakespeare in many ways acted and thought like us (just smarter) and that he had the same desires and feelings as us. It taps into his brilliance and lets it spill out for the masses. I give Shakespeare in Love a 8/10, for all the reasons I have already given minus the fact that for Shakespeare fans the work seems a bit shallow at times.

8/10

UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING

Based on the book of passions, loss and war comes the movie that captures the books passion, loss and war. What more could you ask from an adaptation then? Having read the book, I'll say what I have to say "The book was better" and attempt to move on. Having an acting core made up of Juliette Binoche and Daniel Day Lewis certainly gives the move an equal depth as what I remember from the movie, but where the two differ is on the creativity and ingenuity the books structure and language. The movie also cuts things which I believe were crucial to what makes the book and classic and instead cut it into a bizarre love story that contains the same name. I give Unbearable Lightness of Being a 6/10, since lets be honest it could have been a lot worse and Binoche in particular is her character.

6/10

BOTTLE ROCKET

Having seen everything Wes Anderson had to throw at me I decided to venture back to his feature film debut. At first glance it may appear like a normal Anderson romp: Luke and/or Owen Wilson CHECK, Quirky and/or dysfunctional characters CHECK, Overhead camera angles, wide shots and slow motion conclusions ALL CHECK. While this may sound like the formula we have become pleasantly used to and content with seeing from Anderson, Bottle Rocket is how to say it, well Anderson's first film. The story seems weak and I really just didn't get into these quirky characters like I normal due. And the laughs really never seemed to come. Then again I probably would have given a similar review to Life Aquatic (2004) after seeing it the first time and now deeply regret everything thing there were faults with that movie. So while I give Bottle Rocket a 5/10, I do so tentatively remembering how his films have surprised me upon a second journey.

5/10

DIE HARD 2

So I know I've seen Die Hard (1988) and who hasn't seen Die Hard: With a Vengenance (1995), that must play every single weekend on at least one channel, but somehow I have missed out on seeing Die Hard 2. After watching it, now I know why. Don't get me wrong, while I maybe a stuck up movie snob I like to think that I still know there is a place for mindless actions films which is why I love Die Hard and Die Hard: With a Vengenance, but there is clearly something lacking in this installment in series. Perhaps its that the cliche characters are even more cliche then normal, the characters stupidity (besides Bruce Willis of course) is even more present then normal or perhaps (and I hate to become the person who always references 9/11 changing everything) in a post-9/11 world its difficult to get as lost and involved in an action movie involving plans falling out of the skies as is required to truly enjoy an action movie the way you are supposed to. I give Die Hard 2 a 5/10

5/10

IDIOCRACY

So I should start of by saying that I'm not really a big Mike Judge fan. While I think Office Space (1999) should be hailed as nothing less then an instant classic, both King of the Hill and Beavis and Butt-Head have never been shows I have got the least bit interested in, but lucky for me Idiocracy isn't animated so I approached the film expecting something with a similar vain of humor as Office Space. I can't really say I got that at all. Idiocracy stars Luke Wilson and is a satire on the stupidity of America. Let's go down to the point, I laughed twice as a courtesy in the movie, maybe. The movie appeared to be some bad Sci-Fi movie that attempted to be really gutsy and not only tackle what the future was going to be like, but also make it satirical. Something the Sci-Fi channel has no rights or talent in accomplishing. As you can guess I would say miss this one. I give Idiocracy a 2/10, since it is probably the worse movie I have seen since Curse of the Golden Flower (2006).

2/10

BE KIND REWIND

The newest effort by Micheal Gondry proves once again that the french director doesn't want to be boxed into the romantic genre his first two films cast him as. His new work stars Jack Black and Mos Def and reads like almost any mainstream comedy (not that that is a bad thing). After our two clumsy heroes erase all the VHS tapes in their videostore they are forced to choose the only logic solution and re film each tape they own with themselves as the stars. Now here is where Gondry's genuis becomes present as our stars have to tackle the technical feets of many of our most beloved films (King Kong, Ghostbusters, Driving Miss Daisy, etc.) with no budget or sometimes knowledge of the film. While this does produce many good laughs the plot is just as cheesy as any mainstream comedy. I give Be Kind Rewind a 6/10, since it does manage to make you laugh but the fact that Gondry is directing it makes me think there could have been so much more.

6/10

MY BLUEBERRY NIGHTS

Wong Kar Wai's first english language film has superb acting, cintematography (though it may not be as good as when he had Christopher Doyle who has done nearly all his prior films) and directing. The color palette is staggering. The story, chracters and dialogue though is sadly only average at best and cliche very often, but somehow Wai approaches these cliche topics of alcoholism, heartbreak, and family drama from a back door that the makes the cliche topics seem somehow new. Overall though the dialogue and story is weak and is a downfall in the story. David Strathain and Rachel Weisz story is probably one of the weakest yet seems the strongest thanks to the power acting team. Jude Law, Natalie Portman and the decent Norah Jones really make this film though and are aided by the always unique style of Wai. I give this film an 9/10, since it isn't Wai's best venture, but is perhaps his most accessible to a wide audience that has yet to see his brilliance.

9/10

2 DAYS IN PARIS

Julie Delpy from Before Sunrise/Sunset (1995;2004) fame is back with a witty, romantic comedy, except she isn't just acting this time, but also writing, directing, co-producing, making hte music, editing the film and well to be honest she pretty much did everything in this film. It has a very similiar European flair as Sunrise/Sunset, but at the sime time seems less serious and much more comedic in nature. While both movies have dialogue that is natural and roles off the tongue this film seems less "real" and more a mixture between the European romantic beauty of Sunrise/Sunset and Meet the Parents (2000). I don't think that should be taken as a negative comment, especially since this is Delpy's first stab and writing or directing. I will say I was especially pleased by the ending to the film, which makes me believe she will have a promising directing/writing career if she attempts to pursue it, since this is always the most difficult part of any literary work. An 7/10.

7/10

SUNSHINE

This movie is difficult to review because of how much I loved the first 90 minutes of the movie and how quickly it went downhill. The movie reunites the team behind 28 Days Later (2002) Danny Boyle (Director), Alex Garland (Writer) & Cillian Murphy (Actor) and follows a team of astronauts whose duty is to drop an atomic payload into the sun to "restart" it. If it wasn't for the talent involved in this movie, I would have easily written off the movie based on its plot which dreadfully lacks originality. The movie starts off slow (in a good way), in which we meet the diverse cast and are given time to appreciate the beauty of space as we have been unable to do since the likes of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and Solaris (1972). From there shit starts going crazy and before you know it some man who resembles Nemesis from the Resident Evil series is cutting down the cast of the Icarus II (what astronaut would want there ship flying towards the sun with a name like this) like in a typical horror movie. While I've seen some logic in people's arguments behind the existence of this Nemesis-like character (some which I agree with), I still believe the characters inclusion in the movie diminishes my appreciation, rather then adding anything to the movie which contains some beautiful moments. I give this movie a 5/10, because I just recalled how bad the last five minute of the film were.

5/10

INLAND EMPIRE

Two viewings of this movie and I still have very little to really grasp onto. The facts as they stand now though are that both times I'm really pumped to watch the movie, start to wane after the first hr, lose complete mental functions after the 2nd hr and leave the movie another hr latter hating the movie and having very little brain fuctions left. The next week all I can think about is the movie. If it had been made by any lesser director then David Lynch I would have probably dismissed this movie right off the bat, but based on my history of appreciating Lynch's work I know the man is no joke. This said, I really don't get any of the movie, really none of the movie, but that won't stop me from watching it again and again and eating up the three hrs of bonus features on the DVD. I give this film a 7/10, since no one can terrify you like Lynch can, his images are horrifying.

7/10

ME, YOU AND EVERYONE WE KNOW

Wow was I dissapointed by this. Bland non-existent story line + ridiculous/unrealistic characters + over sexualized situations = crap. I didn't like any of the characters, found very little draw towards any of their acting abilites except for maybe the young kid and just was cringing throughout the film from minute 15. There were perhaps two or maybe three slightly humerous scenes and or moments that actually matered in the film, but how can we realy care about moments that matter when we don't care for the characters at all. How can a movie create a young female charcter that is creating a dowry for her future husband and not explain why she is the way she is and as a male please tell me why two girls never decided to comapre blow job technique on me and when I become a creepy old man will young girls pretend to be lesbian lovers for my amussement. I give this movie a 3/10, since it only cost me 90 minutes of my life.

3/10

TOUT VA BIEN

Up till this point most of the Godard films I have watched have been his early film which while experimental in nature are a lot easier to "get into" then his later politically experimental films. Tout Va Bien is one of those such politically experimental films and one which I had a great deal of difficulty getting into. The movie follows an American woman and French man during the turbulent May 68 Student Revolution and how the revolution impacted a meat factory. The movie moves from moments of sponatneous signing to long drawn out monologues the characters seem to be having either directly with the audience or with the camera itself. At the time this movie was made the audience would have far more background information about the current situation in france then I myself did. Due to this lack of information I immediately fell behind in this movie and quickly lost my way. I give this film a 5/10, since it doesn't reward the viewer enough for all the difficuly.

4/10

HOWL'S MOVING CASTLE

We all know Miyazaki is a phenominal director and has creaed two of my favorite movies of all time, Spirited Away and My Neighbor Totoro. Howl's may not have as much depth as Spirtied Away, but is still a great movie with a quality and unique plot that one would only expect from a Miyazaki film. The animation is also quality and Billy Crystal provides some pretty humerous comic relief as a fire demon that due to a curse has to maintain the form of a meer household fire and power Howl's Castle. I give this film a 8/10, for falling into format which has been typical of Miyazaki's film,but a what a brilliant format it is.

8/10