Reviews

If you haven't heard of the The Fall, you are not alone. Chances are, you would have a hard time finding someone who did see this movie. I know just in central Virginia, it played for exactly one week at an indie cinema. Well, what you (and I) missed out on was one of the most cinematic movies of the past few years.

The Fall is about a little girl named Alexandria (Catinca Untaru) stuck in a hospital with a broken arm who finds a paraplegic man in another ward. This man is a stuntman named Roy (Lee Pace) who tells her a marvelous story. However, to continue hearing it, she must do certain things for him sometimes. Anymore I think would spoil the plot, though it's not really about that.

It's a brilliant premise, and wound up in the hands of a brilliant director. Not because of his direction, so to say, but for his idealism. The Fall was filmed over four years in eighteen countries. I don't know why awards don't touch this movie. Are the Oscars afraid of going too indie? Was it not broody enough for the Independent Spirit Awards? The cinematography was perhaps the best I have ever seen. It was the best of the year, Slumdog be damned. I just don't understand... the Academy is movie critics. They had to have seen this movie, right? Isn't that what they're paid to do?

Anyway, the movie is a movie-making marvel. The little girl (and most of the cast and crew) thought Pace was paraplegic. Imagine the shock when he got up to film the action scenes. The little girl is also not an actress. She is so obviously not an actress, that at first it's hard to adjust to her. In a movie, you're used to seeing people acting, not just going around like normal. It works amazingly at the end, and when she does actually start acting and feeling more normal in front of the camera (much of the film was shot chronologically), it works very well.

The first part of the movie is a little awkward as you're trying to movie between the story and the fantasy. It's not as seamless as, say, Pan's Labyrinth or Secondhand Lions. It's more like an editing room flaw. I feel like, after all the time spent on this movie, the beginning could be better. After all, not too terribly much is going on in the hospital at first. When there's a story within a story, and both need to be told, it's hard to find the proper balance, and that is where The Fall may not shape up. It's also hard, once the names of David Fincher and Spike Jonze were brought up as producing the spectacle, to keep yourself from speculating on what could have been. Both are genius directors, and I kept wondering if the beginning would be smoother if they had been employed to make it.

However, the balance gets better as the movie progresses and reality and fantasy converge. It's mesmerizing, though it, too, has its rough spots. For example, I zoned out for maybe a minute or two and when I started focusing again, it appeared a baby was being tortured. I had to go back and focus again, and in context, it worked, though it's a very, very bizarre additive. In fact, looking back, there is little reason so far to give it over a three. But then the fantasy comes to a climax.

It is one of the most brilliant scenes in of 2008, I have to say. It's like the scene at the end of Benjamin Button. It uplifts the movie to a spot where it wouldn't be otherwise. It's classic film, cinematic, and dramatic. The oral story climaxes in a sadomasochistic, torturing, depressive way, as the world spirals to an end. It truly is tortuous, but so brilliantly so. And though I am not a huge fan of the ending, it works, and I am better for the experience.

The Fall, more than anything is an accomplishment. It's a triumph of cinema. It's a rousing adventure, and an emotional trip.

Baz Luhrmann and Nicole Kidman. In Moulin Rouge!, they are both at their peak. Unfortunately lately, they've been in a slump. Their last film was Australia, a stunning failure. A western mashed sloppily into a war epic trying to chronicle the history of the country/continent. Kidman was humiliated by her performance; she knew how far she had fallen. She fled her native country, Australia, during the premier. She couldn't take the criticism. It was very disappointing. If you're wondering who Baz Luhrmann is, he is the director of Strictly Ballroom, Romeo+Juliet, and the aforementioned movies, plus the very bizarre tribute to musicals at the last Oscars. Oh, and that weird song "Everybody's Free (To Wear Sunscreen)" that was kinda popular once.

But that really is neither here nor there, because this is Moulin Rouge!, made seven years before Australia and is seven times better. There have been at least five movies titled "Moulin Rouge," though this one is distinct as it's the only one that includes an exclamation mark in the title. And features the music of Elton John, Madonna, and every love song ever written, set mostly to house music.

Now let's, again, back up. Moulin Rouge! is about a boy, Christian (Ewan McGregor), from a small town who has gone to Paris to be a Bohemian writer. So as he sits, lost, in his apartment, and Argentinean falls through his roof. He's then commandeered into acting, then writing a play ("Spectacular Spectacular") for Toulouse-Lautrec (John Leguizamo), who is oddly changed from a painter to an actor. But anyway. Then he's sent to win the most beautiful courtesan in Paris, Satine (Nicole Kidman), from the Moulin Rouge (a dance club in this version), so she will act in their play, despite the change in writers. This happens in a matter of minutes, also allowing for the scene where the troupe trips on absinthe.

It's a bizarre musical about freedom, beauty, truth, and most of all, love. And it's stunning. It takes you by surprise. You really do have to pay attention the entire time; it's very easy to miss something important in the frantic, kinetic, colorful mess on screen. I wonder how Baz Luhrmann convinced the other producers to jump onto this movie. "No really, it'll be amazing. Look, we'll start with him in his apartment singing 'Nature Boy' by Nat King Cole, then this guy'll fall through his roof and he'll sing 'The Sound of Music' and they'll get on absinthe. No, and then there'll be this medley type number mixing up Nirvana and Madonna... and, oh my god you guys, it's gonna be great." "Umm... Okay..."

And yet, everything really does work. All the elements fall together in a crazy chaotic way. It's a tragi-comedy, and there's a musical-within- a-musical. The movie starts loud, and crescendos like a symphony. It's the reason people expected so much from Australia, how could the Kidman- Luhrmann partnership failed after such a masterpiece? It's a theater piece, really. But it works. It works. That's all I can do to assure you. It's a top class movie.

I don't remember how I first heard about the Trapped in the Closet series. I just looked them up one day and fell in love.

Trapped in the Closet is a sort of hip-hopera or urban opera, according to Wikipedia. Written, directed, singing, and starring R. Kelly, it chronicles the bizarre twists and turns of a man named Sylvester after he's caught having a one-night stand. It's nothing short of brilliant.

It would be very easy for this to get very bad. It could take itself seriously and be a joke. It could be a tremendous failure. In fact, people seem to be conflicted. They either love it or hate it. Just go look at the comments, and you'll see for yourself. But I'm on the love it side.

Mostly because it is hilarious. I didn't really go into it expecting gay lovers and midgets, but that's exactly what I got. Set to repetitive background music with strategically-placed instrumentals, it's all about the amazing lyrics. So what if they don't always rhyme? So what if the music isn't that great. It's not about that.

I saw it today in "movie" format, all twenty-two chapters together in an hour-and-a-half movie form. It was pretty good, and that is what I give three and a half stars. I give the fragmented series a four. It is designed to be seen in little bits with a cliffhanger. I saw it first on the internet, and actually, I would recommend that over seeing it all continuously. It's the whole suspense and the feeling like, "Oh my god, I have to see what happens next." It takes you back, in my case, before I was born, to old radio dramas and crazy soap operas and laughs at them.

The series isn't over yet; there are ten more chapters coming out this summer. They'll probably be on IFC, which is where I saw the movie.

And a note, there's quite a bit of violence and homophobia presented, and that's been a problem to some, too. For some reason, if it's in a movie, it's okay, but people expect all series to be like The Andy Griffith Show. Anyway, yeah, they talk about violence. Not too much is shown, but they do talk a lot about domestic violence. And there is homophobia, but there are four queer characters. The homophobia's presented as part of the story. Good lord, people, no need to get so defensive; he didn't have to put any gay people in it. And I know R. Kelly has been accused of horrible things. And that has nothing to do with this series.

I don't remember how I first heard about the Trapped in the Closet series. I just looked them up one day and fell in love.

Trapped in the Closet is a sort of hip-hopera or urban opera, according to Wikipedia. Written, directed, singing, and starring R. Kelly, it chronicles the bizarre twists and turns of a man named Sylvester after he's caught having a one-night stand. It's nothing short of brilliant.

It would be very easy for this to get very bad. It could take itself seriously and be a joke. It could be a tremendous failure. In fact, people seem to be conflicted. They either love it or hate it. Just go look at the comments, and you'll see for yourself. But I'm on the love it side.

Mostly because it is hilarious. I didn't really go into it expecting gay lovers and midgets, but that's exactly what I got. Set to repetitive background music with strategically-placed instrumentals, it's all about the amazing lyrics. So what if they don't always rhyme? So what if the music isn't that great. It's not about that.

I saw it today in "movie" format, all twenty-two chapters together in an hour-and-a-half movie form. It was pretty good, and that is what I give three and a half stars. I give the fragmented series a four. It is designed to be seen in little bits with a cliffhanger. I saw it first on the internet, and actually, I would recommend that over seeing it all continuously. It's the whole suspense and the feeling like, "Oh my god, I have to see what happens next." It takes you back, in my case, before I was born, to old radio dramas and crazy soap operas and laughs at them.

The series isn't over yet; there are ten more chapters coming out this summer. They'll probably be on IFC, which is where I saw the movie.

And a note, there's quite a bit of violence and homophobia presented, and that's been a problem to some, too. For some reason, if it's in a movie, it's okay, but people expect all series to be like The Andy Griffith Show. Anyway, yeah, they talk about violence. Not too much is shown, but they do talk a lot about domestic violence. And there is homophobia, but there are four queer characters. The homophobia's presented as part of the story. Good lord, people, no need to get so defensive; he didn't have to put any gay people in it. And I know R. Kelly has been accused of horrible things. And that has nothing to do with this series.

Watchmen was, without a doubt, the most anticipated movie of the year. It's a bit of a shame that it came out in the third month of the year, but still, it doesn't reflect on the movie. i guess they figured the fanboys and the rated R crowd would come whenever the movie did. And I'm sure they did.

We arrived at the movie forty-five minutes before the start because we weren't really planning on arriving at a certain showing. We went ahead and bought the tickets, and were going to go to a bookstore, when we noticed a line. The line for Watchmen in IMAX. So we stood in line for about twenty-five minutes, and they let us in twenty minutes before the movie. We managed to get a decent seat, but nothing choice. That's how many people were there over forty-five minutes before the start. There were six trailers attached to it.

The movie, for those unacquainted with the graphic novel written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons, is about a group of "costumed heroes" after their forced retirement in an alternative 1985. The graphic novel is a rumination primarily on the concept of superheroes and comic books, but the movie focuses more on the whole cold war mythology, and how the superheroes interact with that.

For those unacquainted with the graphic novel, well, it depends on what you're looking for as to what you will find when you watch this. Action, well you probably won't be too happy. It's less than the Dark Knight and it's just as long. A great movie... eh, I really don't think not so much. A story, then you might be satisfied.

For those who love the graphic novel, you should be pleased. It's exactly like watching the book come alive. It's almost exactly the same. Any changes are made completely in the spirit of the original source. It's very visual, and, well, it just feels like a graphic novel.

And yet, I think that may be its flaw. I believe that this is the best movie that could be made of Watchmen staying true to the graphic novel. But I don't think that the graphic novel makes a great movie when taken faithfully. I think it needs to be changed, formed, cut, and then it can be a truly great and amazing movie, like The Dark Knight did. And I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think there should be a prequel, back before the Keene (sp?) act and perhaps leading up to it. It was just too fun watching these amazing characters fight or have sex or just do this awesome things. I think that could be a great movie. Because that's something that movies are good at. Graphic novels are great for plot over visuals, movies are better when they fall on the visual side over the plot. Sin City is a great example. The comics were pretty good. The movie was a great movie. They were basically the same. If Watchmen wasn't the best graphic novel ever, it might have made the best movie ever, if that logic can be followed.

The actors and actresses aren't spectacular all the time, but it works in context. Though when stills of them were shown, I was a bit upset at how different they appeared, they completely become these characters on screen. Zack Snyder competently directs, but his penchant for slow motion can get annoying when not used correctly. But overall the movie is solid and has very striking visuals. It is a very visual movie.

I like the movie. I think the director's cut with the subplot of The Black Freighter spliced in will be spectacular. I am a fangirl, after all. Fans will love it (unless they're upset over the ending change) and I think apart from fanhood it's just a good solid movie.

This movie is a study in mediocrity. This is what American indie has become. I am not very fond with the American indie movie scene at the moment. It has become about folksiness, and "this is your life" situations. What it hasn't realized is that Hallmark movies have been doing this since forever, and it has never been very good. So indie movies think they can quirk it up a little and put the indie label on it, and it'll fly. And for the most part it does.

That is Sunshine Cleaning. A single mother (Amy Adams) raising her son (Jason Spevack) in Albuquerque turns to cleaning up crime scenes with her screw-up of a sister (Emily Blunt). And they have a dad who's always up for get rich quick schemes (Alan Arkin). Doesn't it sound like every movie ever?

And it basically is. I must admit, there is not much exceedingly good in the movie. The highlight is Clifton Collins Jr.'s acting. He makes a one-armed, mustachioed industrial cleaning vendor very likable, and the parts involving him and Amy Adams are wonderful. Because Adams is also acting wonderfully, as always, in her best role as the always happy heroine..

It's the small things in this movie that frustrate. Like how the kid works as the balance in the movie. When it gets to heavy, he says, "I want a sandwich." When it gets too light, he asks, "What happens when we die." And we're supposed to go, "Oh, kids say the darndest things," but it's hard to excuse. Or the half-hearted attempts at actual jokes. Or how the screw-up sister screws up. Or how all the people are exactly like you think they are, just typecasts. How the movie leaves loose plot strings all over the place.

Little Miss Sunshine got it right. It explored the darkness and the levity. It was happy. It too had a quirky family going on a roadtrip. It started in Albaquerque. It was indie. It had all the same elements, and yet, worked. It worked because it was on the move. Because it knew it was a comedy with dramatic elements. Because it had a focus and solid characters. Characters that worked on their own, that weren't symbols, but their own entities. That's what Little Miss Sunshine had, and what Sunshine Cleaning lacks.

But it's made capably enough. It's not terrible. Many people like it. And if you want to relate to typical suffering in the world, but not feel too bad, it's probably a good one for you. It's a movie that won't challenge you in any way, and it's a departure from mainstream cinema. So whatever. Sunshine Cleaning is a bust.

American Psycho had to be the most surprising movie ever for me. I just watched it because the title was intriguing, I had heard about it before, I figured it couldn't be so bad. I was very tired and about to sleep, but this kept me up with various conflicting emotions.

It is the story of a wealthy bank executive (Christian Bale) who is greedy to reach the top, and just as bloodthirsty. As his greed grows, so does his vanity, his sexual virility, his desire for success, his yearning to kill.

The screenplay is brilliant, and the direction, nearly so. Mary Haddon did both, which is stunning. She calls the movie a feminist movie, and if you think long and hard enough about it, it really is. The man, Bateman, is so vain and egocentric in a distinctly male way, and it is this that leads to his yearning for blood. Nearly all the male characters are the same, and they usually all mark their manliness through the exploitation of women.

This also surprised me because of how deeply funny the movie can be at times. It is a satire of corporate greed and capitalism. There are a few points that are simple laugh-out-loud funny. Near the beginning, our main character boils with rage when his business card is outdone by another that looks exactly like his. In a scene a little later, he videotapes a threesome between himself and two hookers. He doesn't seem to derive any sexual pleasure from the women, but from admiring himself in mirrors. His long dissertations on conformity in popular music to his victims are highly amusing. He is the ultimate symbol of capitalism.

I didn't really want to like this movie because of Christian Bale. He seems like a horrible person. But his acting is superb, grade A, so I cannot complain about that. This is one of his best performances (I like to think because he relates to this character so much).

The only thing I have to complain about is Haddon's portrayal of violence. Bret Easton Ellis's book's very graphic descriptions of violence are what made it so controversial. However, Haddon backs away from the violence. She doesn't show much of it at all, which is a fault, because it shies away from the symbolism, and in a little bit of a way, makes the violence less of an issue, which it should not be (I subscribe heavily to the message of Funny Games).

But overall, I think it's brilliant. It's demented, it's substantial, it's funny. It's kind of like an even darker American Beauty. And it all completely works.

I will start this review by saying that I am very biased toward this movie. I am a music lover. I believe it is impossible for any music lover, especially an admirer of Beethoven, to be disappointed by this movie. I also adore Joe Wright, the director, and director of such amazing films as Pride and Prejudice and Atonement. The Soloist is vastly different from those film, but he pulls it together in a way that I greatly admire.

This is based on a true story about a journalist, Steve Lopez (Robert Downey, Jr.), who finds a talented homeless man, Nathaniel Anthony Ayers (Jamie Foxx), on the streets of Los Angeles. He went to Juliard School of Music, but, due to his own personal demons, dropped out and played on the streets. Lopez writes some articles about him and attempts to help him. The movie is about their relationship.

The movie has been billed as rather uplifting. But it really is not. It's about a crazy homeless man who remains crazy and homeless to this very day. The story does follow an arc, but the ending is not as satisfying as if it were a storybook, unlike Wright's other two movies. And that's what many critics, and everyone else is criticizing. But I think that comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the music. Roger Ebert, the great movie critic himself, said "As for the music, Beethoven of course is always uplifting, but the movie doesn't employ him as an emotional showstopper..." which is completely and utterly wrong. The thing is, Beethoven's 3rd Symphony, specifically the first and second movements are used many times throughout the movie perfectly, as "emotional showstoppers." Plus, Beethoven isn't always uplifting! Specifically the 3rd Symphony which is basically a tribute to a schizophrenic hero. The first movement is heroic, beautiful. The second is a torrential funeral march. They are used throughout the movie brilliantly, adding meaning to each scene for those who are familiar with the music. It runs perfectly with the life of the schizophrenic hero of the movie, one that is doomed to end problematically, despite all efforts. Joe Wright understood the importance of the music in this movie, and he picked it perfectly.

Joe Wright is my best friend. He's introducing newness into Hollywood movies. He tells stories in a traditional manner, but adds in innovative and original "camera tricks" in each one. And they all have so much depth and artistic focus. That's one thing he has, artistic focus. And it always comes at exactly the right time. He does some amazing things with music and the city in this film, and he's nothing short of brilliant for doing it.

Downey is amazing. I saw a 60 Minutes special about the real Lopez and Ayers, and though Lopez was nothing like the character in this movie, I will forever remember him like this. Which if fine. Downey played his character spectacularly. Ayers, however, was exactly like Foxx portrayed him in the movie. Foxx is a brilliant actor; he gets deep into his characters, and he isn't afraid of what that means.

In all honestly, this may be Wright's weakest film. The editing is a bit weak in the beginning. It doesn't follow a natural path for a movie near the end. But for someone who understands the music, it will be one of the best you are likely to see. I spent several months deeply studying it, and was greatly rewarded for it by this film. If anyone else did the same, they would see how brilliant this movie is.