Change Your Image
ericventura
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Dunkirk (2017)
It is Not Merely a Film; It's an Experience
This will win numerous awards for its technical production. A nomination for the composition, the cinematography, the editing, the sound, and the production design. Most likely, a nomination for Best Picture. Most certainly, a nomination for the directing and probably another for the writing. A guaranteed win for the sound mixing.
It is a spectacular technical feat done to its maximum potential with maximum effect, but nothing entirely special artistically. It is an aptly done film, completed to honor the events of Dunkirk, a goal that was achieved with room to spare. But I would not call it a spectacular feat of cinematic masterpiece. However, Nolan's experimentation in structure was unique and stellar and the film will become a classic for its potential as a blockbuster and artistic piece, its experimentation, its technical production, and its enjoyability.
The casting is perfect for the desired effect. Nobody steps up into the limelight enough to steal the show because Dunkirk was a miraculous feat for everyone as equals. Fionn Whitehead takes the "lead" as the young boy lost in a hopeless battle, grasping for every glimpse of light in the dark. His youth and naivety is perfect for the role. Rylance shines in his moments as the stubborn and patriotic citizen captain. Hardy demonstrates a fervent loyalty and patriotism in a role, relegated to only acting with his eyes and small gestures. Murphy displays a brilliantly restrained insanity that triggers small events of dire consequences. Together, they make up the several aspects of Dunkirk.
With timeline manipulation and structure experimentation of his previous films such as Memento (2000) and Inception (2010), Nolan finally puts his filmmaking talent to a significant film. Thus, he produces Dunkirk, a la Saving Private Ryan (1999), but Nolan's is far superior. Where Spielberg stressed the realism of the events of Normandy and got caught up in the battle, Nolan stresses the realism of the events of Dunkirk, but makes every minutiae count for something. The ticking score highlights the importance of time. The quick cutting emphasizes the quickness of the events and the ensuing chaos. The blistering sounds punctuate the silence, creating the sense as if you are there. Dunkirk is not merely a film, it is an experience. What James Cameron did in Avatar (2009) and Alejandro Iñárritu did in The Revenant (2015), Nolan does for the war genre with his camera.
Nolan weaves a narrative of land, sea, and sky, in the style of Magnolia (1999), but puts his own spin on it. However, what Nolan has in artistic taste and substance, he lacks in direct narrative. As I said, Dunkirk is not merely a film, it is an experience. But an experience lacks the substance of plot. Thus, there is nothing that makes Dunkirk extraordinary. Yet, it is one of the best war movies ever made. Because it is the Battle of Dunkirk.
Punch-Drunk Love (2002)
Overlooked, Under-Watched, and Underrated
The best Adam Sandler movie ever. Period. This film shows a depth that I never thought Sandler could achieve. It shows a hidden acting talent that is obscured by his toothy, stupid Adam Sandler character of every other movie he has ever been in. The director of actors, Paul Thomas Anderson, brought this out from Sandler in an extremely personal and personable film. To put it simply, for Anderson, Barry Egan represents the eccentricity of himself and for everybody; he represents the difficulties, struggles, and awkwardness in everyday life.
Anderson followed up what may be his greatest piece, Magnolia (1999), with an unusual romantic comedy. Yet he reached equal heights to his previous film. While Magnolia was a masterpiece of artistic vision, Punch-Drunk Love strikes at the heart of the everyday man. But to make a film that can touch everyone's heart is a monumental task. And Anderson succeeds.
It follows the eccentric and struggling Barry Egan, played by Adam Sandler with exquisite taste, who manages a growing business, is abused by his family, struggles with anger problems, and searches for love, amidst the slightly strange, but uniquely pleasant events of the film. And every aspect of the film from the cinematography (which is abstract and brilliant) to the soundtrack (which incorporates the harpsichord that plays a prominent role in the film) contributes to the overall feel and development of the main character. His feelings come across from the basic facial features of Sandler and the carefully expressed twitches and mannerisms to the simple movement of the camera that translates to the screen. Loneliness. Anger. Sadness. Love. You feel it all. In the end, everybody feels some aspect of Egan in themselves and the people surrounding them.
Anderson finishes his film with a unique, but appropriate climax that addresses all aspects of the main character's development in a satisfactory conclusion. His flourishes of the camera come together and accurately represent the emotions of himself and his characters, both throughout the film and in each individual scene. But an amazing aspect of the cinematic masterpiece is the sound and score. Music imbues more emotion than any other aspect of film and Anderson's implementation of his almost psychedelic and raw soundtrack perfectly complements the eccentricity of Egan.
In the end, Anderson creates a personal masterpiece rather than an artistic masterpiece. It is one of the most overlooked, under- watched, and underrated films I know of and deserves more recognition and accolades than it received: a mere single Golden Globe nomination. It's personable and touching. It's funny, but serious. Barry Egan is us and we are him.
The Boondock Saints (1999)
Vigilante Justice
What should have been a runaway blockbuster hit and a cult classic at the same time, ended in disappointing returns for the director due to the horrible Columbine High School massacre. Too late to do anything with the movie, it was released and fell to scathing critical reviews describing insensitivity and viewers were repelled. However, the question remains: is this even a good movie?
Vigilante justice. A provoking topic discussed in this movie and in Dirty Harry (1971), with Clint Eastwood having success. However, in a contest of levels on interest and provocation, the Saints take the bacon. With religious undertones, The Boondock Saints takes two kids with no reason to evoke justice but the ability to and thrusts them into a tri-fold moral conflict. Vigilantes versus cops, good deeds versus sins, and justice versus greed. The screenplay takes all these mental conflicts and combines them with physical conflicts to masterfully weave a story, while emphasizing the youth and naivety of the Saints. But, many times Duffy loses track of his goal and creates ridiculousness of the likes of Woody Allen in Bananas (1971). So is The Boondock Saints, an underestimated Zoolander (2001) or a wildly inappropriate Meet the Fockers (2004)?
The acting is mediocre with Willem Dafoe like a stale piece of bread. The editing is abysmal with the simple use of a fade cut for every transition between scenes. The cinematography is purposeful and accentuates the Saints as the bad-asses that would bring in the big bucks. Except where Dirty Harry remains a bad-ass, the Saints are only bad-asses for a few scenes. Obviously they are different vigilantes, but the exposure to the inexperienced actions only aggravates the moral conflict. The score is the only truly beautiful piece of production. Imagine Roman Catholic organ music played to the acts of vigilante justice. Artistic choice at its best.
Nevertheless, the plot takes a turn for the worst. Embarrassingly predictable twists and cheesy Hollywood clichés turn the film into a stew of triteness. Like The Empire Strikes Back (1980) with no substance. Yet Duffy saves his production with an excellent finish. But its dramaticism erases all sense of ease in the previous two hours. The scene is scary and chilling. Maybe it's the ultimate resolution.
The potential is too great; the execution too botched; the inexperience too pronounced. In the end, this film is good.
The Master (2012)
But Joaquin Phoenix as Freddie Quell
How does Paul Thomas Anderson come up with the idea to study the relationship between a cult leader based off the life of L. Ron Hubbard and a nymphomaniac Navy veteran turned photographer, who becomes absorbed into the cult? This complex relationship and story is utilized to study a simple character dynamic and age-old relationship between father and son, teacher and student, icon and public. Even if Anderson took the story of the Church of Scientology to give birth to his film, how does that story become his character study?
It is simply brilliant. The visual feel from the production design to the cinematography itself is superb, all filmed in 70mm. Each of Anderson's films has exceptional cinematography and each scene in this film had the same, where each movement of the camera was calculated and purposeful. So the visual feel was fantastic.
But Joaquin Phoenix as Freddie Quell. His performance was as riveting and chill-inducing as Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood (2007), but unfortunately, Phoenix was up against Day-Lewis himself in Lincoln (2012). Undoubtedly, Phoenix's best performance to date. Hoffman breaks his character actor mold and guides Phoenix through the treacherous steps of emotional exploration. Together their character dynamic is so complex and emotionally riveting they match the relationship between Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs (1991). If you have not seen this movie, look forward to watching the interview scenes, which may soon become iconic in cinema.
The plot drives the development of Phoenix's character. The development of Phoenix's character puts our traditional morals at conflict. The conflict drives our interest in the plot. Anderson creates an endless loop and bottomless abyss in his film and his study of the human soul and human nature itself.
Nevertheless, Anderson's study and corresponding conflict seems implied and sometimes forced. The realistic nature of the interview scenes is not conveyed to every scene of the film. Sometimes the presence of Anderson's hand in the dialogue is felt and found unwelcome. Instead of allowing his fully developed characters develop themselves, it feels as if Anderson crafted dialogue and scenes regardless of his characters' natures to achieve a certain effect. However, the film still remains a masterpiece of human discovery in cinema.
Fight Club (1999)
You Do Not Talk About Fight Club
The first (and second) rule of Fight Club is "You do not talk about Fight Club". So I won't divulge too much.
The entire production is an achievement in of itself. Somewhat like The Usual Suspects (1995), there are some twists and surprises. The editing, cinematography, production design, sound, etc. all contribute to the effect, which is quite difficult to do. To give just enough in the first viewing, but the second viewing reveals all.
However, to me, the whole thing feels empty. The film gives a lot of advice about life, but never really says much. Yes, there's a whole entire level below the visual and audio level revealing a hidden satire, complete with subliminal messages, but, to me, it just does not have substance. No character development, no theme, no significant plot. It really just comes down to one element. Fight Club is, by far, not my favorite film, but I give credit where credit is due. Fincher's primary goal was that when the movie was over, to at least have the viewer think about what they just saw. Most likely, for every viewer that has seen this movie, Fincher achieved his goal.
Rain Man (1988)
My Main Man
I have to trust Michael Caine on his opinion of Tom Cruise in Rain Man, describing the subtlety and intricacy that Cruise depicted accurately in his role of a brother kindling a relationship with his estranged brother. Cruise deserved the Oscar, but I love Hoffman's performance all the same.
In the end, Rain Man is simple perfection. The realism and beauty in the screenplay is amazing. To portray a subtly developing relationship between brothers who have not known each other with such incredible emotion, is a feat that will rarely or never be achieved again. Silence of the Lambs (1991) depicted a perverted relationship between a psychopath and a scared detective, The Godfather (1972) depicted the violent relationships of a mafia family, and Chinatown (1974) depicted the twisted relationships of a screwed-up family, but Rain Man achieved described the brotherly relationship with universal truth and raw emotion.
Rarely seen perfection makes an instant classic, but two of the greatest performances of the late century by Cruise and Hoffman only accentuate the relationship. Valeria Galino delivers a fine-tuned performance as the oddly erotic girlfriend who drives the brothers forward in an intensely interesting fashion.
There's not much else to say except that the "my main man" scene is done with chilling perfection. The raw emotion gave me the chills and put me on the verge of tears. To evoke such emotion in the characters and the viewers is a monumental task. If any film did it right, this one did.
Moana (2016)
Single-Best Modern Disney Princess Movie
Moana is a movie reminiscent of the classic Disney formula, yet the masterful manipulation of music, visual, and story render a much more powerful narrative. Imagine a Disney princess story mixed with the musical achievement of Elton John in the Lion King (1994) (in this case Lin-Manuel Miranda) to achieve a film of masterful rendition equal to the likes of a Broadway musical or La La Land (2016).
The piece is defined by the music, yet still delivers strongly with its plot. Expecting the typical chemistry of the Disney formula, we get a carefully calculated divergence from the recipe. However, instead of the confused ramblings of Frozen (2014), Moana takes the high road, turning Disney magic combined with the traditional musical style to create a wonderful new addition to the Disney princess catalog. Moana, the character, takes the adventurous personality of Ariel and the cautious courage of Simba. Finally, in the climax, every aspect of the film comes together in a beautiful point of parallelism and self-realization, making Moana an instant classic and the best traditional Disney installment since the turning of the new century.
However, the creators fumble by mixing up musical craft with the catchy songs designed for kids. There is but one misplaced song that is merely there to catch the essence of the "Disney magic". Additionally, what is a divergence from the traditional formula also adheres too much. Playing on the simple pathos and sympathy found all too often in kids movies and romantic facades, the film utilizes cliché rather than creativity to create conflict in a pivotal moment, unfortunately, reducing the impact of the plot.
Nevertheless, Moana is the single-best modern Disney princess movie, contending with the classics, but falters at moments.
Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)
A Beautiful Film with Substance, But No Essence
Every aspect of this film should have received an award nomination. Every aspect of this film is done to a point. It's a play on the big screen, but it's an intense and introspective search of human desperation in an isolated incident, filmed so perfectly and naturally that the viewer can't doubt its realism. In the style of Arthur Miller, we have a story that may seem to desire the reform of the real estate industry, but that's absurd. It is an examination of the human reaction to having their back to the wall. Calm; negotiations; bribery; dirty deals; thievery; crime; and desperation.
We have a film of immensely emotional and carefully constructed dialogue. Mamet builds the characters and feelings of the real estate agents through each line of dialogue. The screenplay dictates more a character study than a plot. The slow reveal of events only works to further characterize and emphasize personality.
With such great characters in the film, they need great performances to make them come alive. Jack Lemmon leads the pack by far. Cheated out of a nomination, it feels like Lemmon is playing himself – a washed up character who once was the best. You can see the pain, the desperation, and the raw emotion on his face, but you can hear it in each line delivered. Lemmon leads the film and drives the character study, and he is the main subject. Al Pacino delivers a finely tuned and seasoned role that supports Lemmon' character through his downfall. Alec Baldwin punches out a brief performance with an intensity that the catalyst for the entire film needs. Alan Arkin is the pathetic one that was always pathetic. Arkin reads between the lines and conveys a convincing character. Ed Harris plays the character of rage and revenge, the one who has always been cheated, maybe an alcoholic – and Harris gets it right. Kevin Spacey, unfortunately, is dull and blah. His character is supposed to be a stone statue, but even a statue can have a fire in his eye.
James Foley directs a monster of a cast through a delicate screenplay, turning in a beautiful film. The piece takes place in a naturally built production design, complete with a Chinese restaurant and a real estate office. But everything is buried too deep under the natural realism of the film. The emotions are perfect, but somewhat stale. It feels like a sweet glazed jelly donut without the jelly. There's a beautiful film that has substance, but no essence. Here, we have the 'Death of a Real Estate Agent', but just one notch below "Death of a Salesman."
Cidade de Deus (2002)
It's the City of God. It's Real.
This is a documentary, not a film. It shows the slums as they are. A well filmed story of nothing more than the slums, there is no more emotion than the emotion of the observer. What we get is splendid, but it is not a film. It is beautiful, but not perfect.
The dialogue is real. Whether or not it is accurate to the actual dialogue of the slums (and I'm sure it is) is irrelevant. The heart of the lines is true. The heart shows the tragedy and despair each character faces every day. The inevitable destiny of being placed in the slums. The immovable niche for gangs is prominently displayed with the underlying fear imbued into each aspect of the screenplay. It is done to its effective and maximum potentiality.
Artistically, the film has the flair of Scorsese or Tarantino (notably, his actually good films). Violence for a purpose and artistic purpose. There is a duality imbued into the film between the photographer and the drug dealer, the cops and the gangs, Rio de Janeiro and the City of God. Meirelles outlines a clear symmetry with technique and flair in his filming. He clearly adopts the eyes of the observer. He makes it directly reflected through the camera lens of the photographer. He makes the film a documentary. He makes it real.
In fact, the actors are either unknown or actually from the slums. People involved in the production of the film lived in the slums. The piece was actually filmed in the slums. This is the most real a film can get. It's not just a film, it's a documentary. It's not Hollywood, it's the City of God. It's real.
Florence Foster Jenkins (2016)
Delightfully Sweet Comedy
A story of an aspiring opera singer with a screeching voice so horrible she could kill someone, Florence Foster Jenkins is so well done the story becomes film. It takes an expertise to craft a comedic story with love and hope and satire just as much as it takes expertise to sing as badly as Meryl Streep does. The flamboyant character imbues the screen with flamboyance and extravagance as every aspect of the film takes on those traits. However, the film is quite traditional with nothing that inspires greatness. So while it is an interesting and entertaining film, it isn't anything special.
Streep turns in a magnificent performance as Jenkins. While the somewhat corny subject matter seems to provide her with a disadvantaged role, the seasoned actress turns it into an amazingly deep role of complex love, high hopes, and undying friendships. Additionally, Simon Helberg as the somewhat homosexual, awkward, and talented piano instructor delivers both a nice comedic relief and a means for the moral development of the characters.
The screenplay demonstrates a high level of skill by describing both the levitating highs and tragic lows of the main character, while still encompassing the great character. To make both comedy and serious drama of the plight in the film is a tough task, but achieved well. There is a hint of satire to complement and round out the movie's edges. Yet the ending is delivered with the basic form of a feel-good movie, diminishing much of the effect built up throughout the film. A delightfully sweet comedy, but it just fails to deliver.
Cocoon (1985)
Old People and Aliens
What could have been a simple disaster movie took a late turn into the depths of mysteriousness and emotional ignorance. Like a horrible aftertaste, Cocoon starts out well and turns sour halfway into the meal. What Jaws (1975) did, Ron Howard decided not to do. Trading in simplicity for a screenplay of old people and aliens, he attempts to weave a tale of redemption and fate, instead finding himself directing an action movie with no purpose.
In fact, this movie has no purpose whatsoever. It says nothing, it accomplishes nothing, and it does nothing. It's a story for telling a story's sake. But where Inside Llewyn Davis (2013) tells a story because of the existence of the story, Cocoon must search out the material to make the story. And the screenplay looks long and hard for that inspiration for a good story – and gives up. So we get a movie with old people and aliens. A story where old people of Earth have more in common with aliens from some distant planet (that have apparently been to Earth already, explaining certain human legends) than with their own kind. But where E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) makes good use of moral children and friendly aliens, this movie decides to attempt to make a sentimental story with a stupid child and indulgent aliens. But wait
there's more! Don't forget the necessary, underdeveloped, and makes-no-sense-whatsoever love story – in this case between a human and an alien.
The beginning was decent however. Howard attempts to construct a slowly building tense storyline of gradually revealed twists. Which works until it feels like the movie should end at around the 80 minute mark instead of the 120 minute mark. The slow sci-fi drama of the first half is quickly overshadowed by the feel-good catastrophe of the second half.
Don Ameche was decent, but I think the Academy has something for old people, like Art Carney in Harry and Tonto (1974). While good performances, do they deserve the Academy Award? The visual effects were good for the time and not abused unlike many an action and sci-fi movie of today, not to name names. If only Howard could have kept the slow build up going, like Arrival (2016), he would have had a fine classic entry into the 80s sci-fi movie collection. Now, we just have Cocoon, the classically bad movie.
Searching for Bobby Fischer (1993)
Repulsive Choice in Subject Matter
When Searching for Bobby Fischer was released on August 11, 1993, Josh Waitzkin (the main character of film) was 16 years old and still playing chess. I watched this film assuming that Josh was a fictional character designed with the artistic and thematic purpose to parallel the chess player Bobby Fischer. In combination with the surreal and dramatic moments, the movie veils itself as a fictional piece and seems to be, in fact, a highly dramatized non-fiction based piece. Upon further research, I found that the real Josh Waitzkin, faced with the pressure of movie fame, turned to Tai Chi, quit chess, and picked up martial arts instead.
Is it appropriate to make a film based on the life of a seven-year-old who at the time of release is 16 years old? The subject matter and concurrent dramatization becomes revolting. While dramatization is fine, like in the case of In the Name of the Father (1993) - released the same year - where the event is far removed, made clear to be based on a true story, and dramatized for cinematic purpose; this movie only fulfills one of those criteria.
Despite the choice of subject, the film makes effective use of their subject and excessive dramatization. By paralleling Bobby Fischer with the development of Josh Waitzkin, an interesting moral story of expectations and purpose is created. Great characters are described with contradicting motives and lingering pasts. These characters mix and collide to develop the young Waitzkin into a fine chess player. Zaillian creates a brilliant coming-of-age story of the level of Boyhood (2014). But even further still, Zaillian creates a beautiful overarching metaphor. Chess is the name of the game and that's how he films it. Each scene is a chess move in the final checkmate: the development of Waitzkin. Each scrap of dialogue is a chess move in the final outcome of the conversation. Conrad L. Hall, the cinematographer, helps parallel the chess game with his camera. It's a beautiful movie with a strong, central metaphor, like La La Land (2016).
Unfortunately, along with the subject matter, Zaillian builds up to a carefully constructed climax, yet the climax itself is made of glass. He made a film about a child and creates a childish climax. Only an amateur filmmaker would make a definite 'bad guy' for the 'good guy' to beat in a beautifully crafted story. Leave those black-and-white antics for the comic book movies. Are we supposed to cheer when the 'good guy' miraculously wins against the innocent 'bad guy'? This movie becomes a blended smoothie of an amateur heroic plot and a masterful coming-of-age story, supplemented by a repulsive choice in subject matter.
Chicago (2002)
A Film of Masterful Parallelism
Not surprisingly, this film is adapted from a play. To put it simply, the film feels as if they took the play, filmed it with a nice camera, and put it on the screen. But they did it nicely and made a great film full of fantastic acting, emotion-packed scenes, and vivid visuals.
A story of an aspiring showgirl in Chicago, it transcends the shallow emotions of the primary characters, instead painting a rich and deep portrait of tough human emotion with a hint of satire. When caught too deep in the tragedy of the story, Marshall plucks the characters out of the depths and inserts a bit of humor and satire, keeping true to both the subject matter and form of film.
To imbue emotion into a musical of this scale is a tremendous and monumental task. But the cast do it. Zellweger, as the main character, portrays a perfect naivety and shallowness, showing off her skills as an experienced and talented actress. Zeta-Jones is a wonderful supporting actress who illuminates the wonderfully paralleled stories and emotions of the two main showgirls. Gere is outrageously funny. Whether by purpose or on accident, he feels out of place and awkward in a musical, adding humor, but still turns in a fine performance. John C. Reilly in his sparse amount of scenes is absolutely splendid. In what must be the best performance of his career, Reilly embodies the character and makes the viewer earnestly pity and understand him. His solo is spectacular.
Every song fit. The songs were set up to both parallel the plot and illustrate the plot at the same time. The set-up is not only artistic, but serves a thematic purpose for the film. However, many a times utilizing song as the main instrument in a film detracts from the rest of it. In this case, the music acts to bolster the emotion of the film, effectively conveying the powerful feelings of the character through carefully constructed music, perfectly exuberant acting, and aptly shiny visuals. The incorporation of these songs into the dialogue makes for a brilliantly crafted screenplay. A film of masterful parallelism on all levels and stimulating plot, Chicago is a story of highs and lows, dramatized to the fullest potential.
Working Girl (1988)
At Least, It was Funny
The epitome of cliché, Working Girl takes your typical rags to riches story taking place in the male-dominated business world, inserts strong female characters, and turns the film into a particularly good feminist anthem. While the movie does have strongly developed themes, it is not good. It's a funny romantic comedy, but that does not excuse the blatant, overdone stupidity of the whole production.
There is nothing special about this movie. Nothing technically appealing, visually stunning, or cinematically special. So the screenplay, in order to make this banal movie more appetizing, flips the gender roles, making this rom-com more interesting, but ultimately the same movie. Better and more sophisticated than Clueless (1995), it still falls far short of When Harry Met Sally (1989). The people making this film must have patted themselves on the back for their clever film, failing to see the façade that it truly is. They put a masquerade mask to hide the pathetic truth of this movie. But it's really just a bland and unseasoned chicken with a little salt sprinkled on top.
The acting of a few of the primary characters is quite good, while others fall as short as the film. Both Melanie Griffith and Harrison Ford act well for the role, but not much more. However, their dynamic together is truly felt and earns the film at least one point for some authenticity. Sigourney Weaver's performance seems tasteless and stiff, typical of the mean boss. Joan Cusack is the only true star in this movie, capturing the energy and eccentricity of her character, creating humor and making her scenes enjoyable.
There's not much else to this bland film. At least, it was funny.
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Quentin Tarantino is Quentin Tarantino
Quentin Tarantino is Quentin Tarantino. Inglorious Basterds is a blend of film genres from war to western, drama to comedy, and tragedy to satire, producing a film enshrined in poetic justice between the hunter and the hunted.
Tarantino seems like a kid in a candy shop, too excited to pick just one thing so he picks them all. Thus, this movie ends up as a genre mosh pit. Maybe he's confused or maybe he has a piercing and stylistic direction to his recent films. For sure, he has his own stylistic twists reminiscent of classical films and spaghetti westerns. From the opening credits, the viewer is transported back fifty or more years to Sergio Leone films, most notably The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1966). Yet, this simple stylistic twist sets the stage for the rest of the film as a movie set during World War II in the style of a western.
Each scene separated from the rest of the piece is a masterpiece itself. From the perfectly timed editing that leaves out just enough to the harrowing musical composition and its blend of modern and Ennio Morricone. The acting is mostly average (with the exception of Brad Pitt, who stands out as a mediocrity) except for Christoph Waltz, who chills from the opening scene. He sets the tone when he steps on the screen. And his negotiations scene is so riveting that the antsiest dog would be fixated on his performance. Something about his mannerisms, his confidence, his facial expressions, his tone of voice, makes his performance worthy of each award he received, should mark him as an exemplary actor, and earn his place in the best performances in cinematic history. The filming of individual scenes is perfect, but put together, they have problems.
While Tarantino frames the story as a western, he fails to emphasize the structure as clearly as Leone. He fails to pronounce the poetic justice that makes up a great portion of the film. He fails to accentuate the irony of the hunter and hunted that makes up the majority of his thematic development. He leaves his characters as static statues with only personality in order to develop everything else, but the film remains non-cohesive. Possibly, the structure of the film into chapters may have thrown off the fluidity of the piece. Tarantino attempts the delicate structure of Intolerance: Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages (1916), but instead achieves the loose structure of Memento (2000).
Additionally, the plot is fragile and poorly thought out. But he deserves a pass for artistic license.
The Hurt Locker (2008)
An Adrenaline Junkie's Film about an Adrenaline Junkie
Bigelow attempts to weave an intense character study of interconnected parts during the Iraqi War in The Hurt Locker, but fails completely. In a well-made film technically, every aspect fails to come together to complete a whole. What ends up being produced is a visual masterpiece of well set up nothingness. It's a movie about nothing, but in a bad way, unlike The Big Lebowski (1998).
This is an adrenaline junkie's movie about an adrenaline junkie in war. Each war scene seems like another way to get the adrenaline pumping and the thrills going. While the first two or three are well-made and set up the rest of the film, the viewer becomes tired of the redundant scenarios and the movie accomplishes nothing. In essence, there is a thematic quote displayed across the screen to open the film, "The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug," – and the movie takes two hours to simply say that "war is a drug." Two hours could have been saved for a film of more artistic value than this one by simply showing us that quote for ten seconds.
Renner's performance is limited to the bounds of the film. He is fantastic in his role, but the role is nothing special. The supporting actors of his team, Mackie and Geraghty, shine in their sole scenes, but can do nothing but fade away when Renner is in the limelight – again thanks to the frame of the film as an action-filled fiasco.
In the end, we have discombobulation. A spattering of scenes stitched together in similar scenarios to deliver a message. The message is delivered well with an apt vehicle. Yet there is no provided depth. What Bigelow tries to add with scenes of empathetic importance, fails to come across. Thus, the supermarket scenes depicting the normal life of Staff Sergeant William James, Renner's character, were more involving and engaging. The character fits with more context into the supermarket than the battlefield. This movie fits with more context in a locker rather than on the screen.
Salmon Fishing in the Yemen (2011)
Clichéd Romantic Comdedy in the Yemen
Salmon Fishing in the Yemen attempts to take a fresh dip in the Hollywood pool, but instead turns to the typical saltwater of movies. It does reach the level of light romantic comedy without going too far on the lovey-dovey side, yet it still embraces quite a bit of unwanted cliché. And the entire film, subject, and theme is as confused as the sheikh, who is trying to build a river suitable for salmon fishing in Yemen.
Is the film lightly satirical or lightly comedic with a hint of romance? The novel itself is a political satire, but the film adaptation seems to take the form of a romantic comedy with political satire abruptly injected into various moments. Hallström, with a deal of great movies under his belt, fails to achieve a proper blend of comedy and satire to render this movie effective. He should have strived for something like The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) or American Beauty (1999). Something lightly satiric and socially critical, hidden by the main part of the film. Unfortunately, we mainly just get a cliché romantic comedy.
However, the movie is fairly well done. A comedic mid-life crisis with a hint of love is used to effectively drive the plot forward with ample character development and somewhat developed themes. Too bad the thematic development was left to drown so that the romantic relationship could be fully played out. Additionally, anything that can be seen from a mile away is usually considered boring and dull – and I could predict most of the movie's events with ease. Thank you, clichéd plot.
The film remains entertaining and interesting with contributions by Amr Waked as the mystic and visionary sheikh. Performances by McGregor and Blunt are as stale as the characters they played – mere caricatures of the trope they are based upon. But, the writing is splendid, including well-written and witty dialogue as a main form of characterization and subtle parallelism developed throughout the film. Hallström, unfortunately, could not embrace the novel and script, leaving both to be overpowered by the immensity of love. In this case, salmon fishing probably shouldn't occur in the Yemen if this film is what it yields.
The Accountant (2016)
The Super Accountant
The Accountant, attempting to actually develop characters and attack questions of morality by introducing nuance, shortly becomes reduced to the typical action movie conspiracy poop. By adding a backstory to the clichéd hero protagonist, played by Ben Affleck, the creators hope to add depth. What they do add is ruined by everything else in the movie.
The story involves a super accountant that is supposedly better than any other accountant in the world, has superhuman fighting abilities, is rich enough to support an autistic service center with cutting-edge technologies, is more talented than James Bond at being a spy, and can't make small talk at all. However, he has a troubled past, which is surprisingly well done, excluding the acting. This horrendously ridiculous and amateurish plot includes a half-baked love story, which makes no sense whatsoever, between Kendrick and Affleck; forgotten brotherly relationships; strained parental connections; and confusing, horribly introduced, plot-twisting conspiracies. If this film had any potential whatsoever (and I think it did), it was completely obscured by the events of the movie – and then the acting.
Ben Affleck is played by a stone statue in this movie. If the accountant he plays has more than one emotion, I would be incredibly surprised. The director could have hired a puppeteer technician to attach strings to a stone look-a-like of Ben Affleck and just use that. Instead, we have Ben Affleck to stare through the screen with his completely empty and expressionless eyes. Somehow Affleck managed to turn in a worse performance than the child actors used in the flashbacks. Affleck and his counterpart in his flashbacks should have been striving for something like Leonardo DiCaprio in What's Eating at Gilbert Grape (1993), but they should have just hired DiCaprio to play both the older and younger Christian Wolff. Talent is wasted in this film (like any other action movie) with the likes of Anna Kendrick, J.K. Simmons, and Jeffrey Tambor. I never thought I would see a more robotic performance than Arnold Schwarzenegger in The Terminator (1984), but at least Arnie was supposed to be a robot.
With nothing exceptional in the technical categories, the director and writer fail with everything else. At certain moments, the movie seemed to have the qualities of an actually good film. Unfortunately, the good parts of this movie met Ben Affleck and the rest of the movie.
Oldeuboi (2003)
Visual Masterpiece, Emotionally Incomplete
A film that discusses a vast range of human emotion and moral questions, Oldboy is merely a plot-driven tale of revenge. The film is composed of extremely rich characters of intensely described emotions and personalities played by very apt actors. However, these characters become consumed in a confusing, but well-woven, web of events, flashbacks, and choppy explanations. The depth of these carefully created characters built by Chan-wook Park is hidden by the carefully created story built by the same person.
The subject matter is full of potential no matter how it is presented due to its intensity and brooding venture into the human soul. But the viewer is rendered unable to connect with the plight of the characters due to the several twists and delicate plot points. While the story is solid and unfathomably interesting, it severely detracts from what should be the major point of the film: the exploration of the human soul.
The filming and production of the piece is beautiful. The director carefully builds his story with perfectly inserted flashbacks and David Lynch-style scenes. The acting by the primary cast conveys the emotions of the characters to a fine point. The writing manages to render dialogue for the film that remains realistic, characterizes, and displays emotion, despite the fantastical situation and many variables. The composition accompanying the film is exceptionally brilliant, mixing classical and modern instrumentals together. The music effectively accentuates the intense emotions portrayed in the movie. Additionally, the filming and design creates a beautiful visual experience. Oldboy is a visual masterpiece, like 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), but all of it detracts from the main purpose and raw emotion of the movie.
It's like Memento (2000) on steroids, or Room (2015) with even more intensity. Yet it misses the mark completely. The emotion is felt, and then lost in the confusing whirlwinds of the story. Park throws the viewer into the Land of Oz and is lost wondering where Kansas went. Tears should be shed for the tragedy of Dae-su Oh, but instead tears are wept for the lost potential of this visually perfect, but emotionally incomplete film.
Zoolander (2001)
Satirically Stupid
It's stupid. So incredibly stupidly ridiculous. If there was a contest for stupidest stupidity, Derek Zoolander wouldn't be able to figure out how to accept the award. But it's also incredibly funny. And incredibly inappropriate. And it came out at the wrong time. Zoolander is a stupidly funny and inappropriate movie.
The plot of the movie is abysmal and the concept is idiotic. The characters are cliché and static. The writing is awkward and Sandler-esque. Every other element of the film is completely unmemorable and done with average ability. Everything combines to create an extremely unrealistic film of the classic Hollywood comedy genre. So is Zoolander a good or bad movie? The film is actually an incredibly intelligent (but stupid) piece that both criticizes and satirizes multiple aspects of society at once, including the genre niche that this movie resides in. The screenplay is written so that Derek, played by Ben Stiller, can both be laughed at and sympathized with. The valleys and mountains that Derek Zoolander crosses are stupid, yet the viewer becomes attached to him. Standard filming forces the viewer to attach themselves to the main character's hopes and dreams. Thus, the parody and satire in the characters and events vigorously come across the screen.
Zoolander is another Hairspray (1988) or Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964), a wonderful satire on the events and feelings of the time. Yet Zoolander is even funnier.
Theeb (2014)
A True Wolf
Theeb is a gradually built film of characterization and nuance, using tension, action, and imagery more than dialogue. Similar to The Revenant (2015) in its use of extensive visuals as an important tool of development, this film is even more effective. Both pieces detail a story of survival; however, Theeb, the main character of the film, truly breaks a mental barrier in his character development (where Hugh Glass, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, falls short) through outstanding directing, writing, acting, and filming.
This movie matches the desert's pace. Slow and steady. Nowar provides the foundation for the main conflict over the entire first hour. Mainly without dialogue, brotherly relationship is detailed, WWI tensions are subtly described, and Theeb is slowly characterized. Tension is masterfully built from the limited perspective of the child, thus truly isolating the events of the plot as a mere device to effectively challenge and build Theeb. Written and directed beautifully, the film reaches the height of The Godfather (1972) in its great character sketch.
Theeb is simply a piece of art. Thaler utilizes an experience as rich as Emmanuel Lubezki's to film the events of the film. Each lingering shot serves a purpose to derive a certain emotion; each close-up of Theeb emits an aura to further characterize; each shot of nature emphasizes the environment and danger at the perfect time. Each element of the piece added together build towards a climax so carefully constructed and so gradually built that the slightest touch of the feather would knock it over. This is a film where the emotions of the actors can be felt through the camera; through the screen.
Additionally, the movie achieves a fantastic degree of realism. The environment is real, the characters are real, the dialogue is real, and the events are real. The cautiously written script along with the authentic acting creates a reality, in which the full effect of the film can be realized. The acting is nothing special, which makes it real.
The immensity of Theeb and his character is alluded to throughout the film and realized because of the events. Theeb is a wolf, born in danger and forged through trial of fire. But emotion was lost somewhere in the middle section of the film. The foundation of the pyramid that Nowar so carefully built eroded away ever so slightly, but just enough to reduce the impact of the final brick being placed. Thus, we find Theeb, the wolf, toughened and tempered, but with no emotion, making this a film about a true wolf.
Mystic River (2003)
Boston is Boston
An intense film founded on the slow character and plot development of the Dennis Lehane novel of the same name, Clint Eastwood and the cast convey an emotional depth rarely seen in cinema. The mystery film concerns itself more with the inner depths and mysterious developments of the small community, reflected in the Mystic River, rather than the large overarching case that catalyzes the ensuing events. This is what makes the cinematic masterpiece so beautiful. Each character, each event, each scene, and each tiny detail exist for a reason, paralleling the enormous themes of the film. Mystic River is bigger than the movie itself; it conveys meaning directly to the viewer with vivid emotion.
Eastwood works to slowly build his film from the bottom up with carefully constructed tiers: plot, character, time-line, etc. Masterfully inserted flashbacks effectively connect the past to the present in a community where the present is the past. But the powerful performances from the entirety of the cast finish Eastwood's emotional drama. Sean Penn and Laura Linney form the powerful duo of a hurt couple full of love, hope, and purpose. Penn, Robbins, and Bacon make up the childhood trio tied together by an unforgettable past; an emotion seen in the atmosphere of their scenes together. And Penn and Robbins deliver spectacularly in their awkward, suspenseful, misinterpreted, fateful scenes together that shape the entirety of the film and the relationships of the characters in it.
Helgeland masterfully adapted Lehane's immense novel into a brief two hours of intensity. The majority of the novel's theme, characterization, and nuance were transferred into the film through dialogue and acting. The characters came alive and the actors became the characters. The fateful story playing out in the piece transcended the screen, taking refuge in the rivers of reality, slowly washing over and then, breaking wave after wave on the viewer.
Mystic River is a cinematic masterpiece to be remembered for centuries. It provides a piercing view into community, fate, love, and the effect of the past. It makes simple statements engulfed in reality to create an artistic perfection. The final product is art; the post-production was art; the filming was art; the development was art. And it simply says that fate is fate and Boston is Boston.
Batman (1989)
The Caped Crusade
In a clearly Burton-esque film, Batman departs from the Adam West era of Batman: The Movie (1966), reverting the serious character turned comedic back to serious. But it's still a superhero movie. From the opening scene, Burton's influence is detected in the zany appearance of the film, which contributed to the great look of the production vividly seen in the beginning. The story is dull and typical, failing to fully exploit and explore the paralleling stories, personalities, and characters of the Dark Knight and the Joker. Burton faced the monumental challenge of adapting a cultural phenomenon into a film, scoring a mild success; however, he laid the foundation for the development of Bruce Wayne in cinema leading to The Dark Knight (2008). Michael Keaton was awkward. Intentionally or unintentionally: I have no idea. The performance worked mostly as Wayne, but as Batman, the awkwardness seemed out of place. Jack Nicholson was perfect. Clad in clown make-up, Nicholson embraced the unpredictability and quirkiness of the character, turning the always grinning icon into a wonderful performance of terrifying villainy. Unfortunately, the actor faltered in pre-Joker scenes and the dramatic climax, unable to deliver the nuanced emotion of the clown gangster. The film failed to give reason for its existence beyond the presence of a superhero. The movie acts as a glass bridge: no purpose other than to exist and look pretty; looking pretty courtesy of Jack Nicholson and Anton Furst. It seems like the Wayne-Vale relationship could break just as easily as the glass bridge because the movie lacks necessary development, maybe found in the comic books. Still, Burton threw the development in the river along with the remaining reason needed for a movie, leaving a fairly well-linked montage of images and audio, one step above from a collage. Thanks to Burton's influence, we get to enjoy the wonderful new superhero movies such as Thor: The Dark World (2013) and Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015), but at least his movie is better.
Scrooged (1988)
100 Minutes of Scrooging
Scrooged, born of the unimaginative minds of untalented producers, attempts to render a classic into a modern adaptation (for originality). Clearly setting up a parallel between the classic story and the movie's story, the development is not lost on the viewer and could have been admirable, if it were not so obvious and actually contributed to the overall product. However, soon after the first minutes of the movie, the supposed ingenuity was lost and replaced with the typical, formulaic comedy movie starring a bumbling businessman, a hopeless love, and the newly recruited executive. While there are a few elicited laughs, the comedy is speckled with monologues, hopelessness, and anger, turning a Murray comedy into a drama. Maybe Donner was shooting for something like Fargo (1996), except that he forgot how to make a film, instead using the wrong movie mold straight off the shelf. The acting is typical of your typical comedy: typical, reminiscent of Happy Gilmore (1996). Everything was typical, possibly excluding the set and artistic direction aspect with the ghost costumes and TV sets. Unfortunately, the only question this film made me ask was: Why did I watch this film? Technically, the movie attacked the morality of corrupt and greedy businessmen, offering the resolution of living a humanitarian lifestyle, but it was simply adapted from a story as well-known as the Bible. The framing of the story by the writers was decent due to its parallelism to the adapted story and well-structured flashbacks, but they seemed to have forgotten their knock-knock joke book at home when they wrote the script. At least, Murray helped a bit with his classic improvisations. Should anyone watch this movie the day after they watched it the first time, it would be a completely new experience because they won't be able to remember anything of this unmemorable movie. Scrooge could remember his humanity, but Scrooged won't be remembered at all.
Terminator Genisys (2015)
Please Terminate the Franchise
The story in Terminator Genisys is nuanced so much beyond the complexity of the previous Terminator films that it takes place in an alternate time-line. And there seem to be so many plot holes. And development flaws. And stupid ideas. And I don't have a clue what in carnation happened in the poop that I sat through for 2 hours and 6 minutes as I counted down the seconds. The plot may actually be well-developed with explanations made apparent with multiple viewings for the seeming holes scattered throughout the movie; however, no one has the time, patience, or stamina to watch this horrid obscenity more than once. The story starting out relatively simple for a Terminator movie soon turns into scrambled eggs, except these eggs were made in a blender by one of the worst chefs in Hollywood. Alan Taylor should stick to television. The plot resembled that of Back to the Future: Part II (1989), where there were three Marty's running through the same/alternate time-lines, and all the other movies using time travel that got so mixed up the writer probably couldn't remember what was going on. But wait
Arnie is here to save the day as an old Terminator (written back into the films with a bad explanation as to why he looks old), but does jack-diddly-squat to save the movie with his performance. To be honest, the Governator did elicit a few laughs with his strained robot smile. Yet the movie still seems to end up as a return strategy for an old fart and another way to milk the money bag for the production company, similar to Paul Newman in The Color of Money (1986). I feel bad for the talents such as Emilia Clarke and J.K. Simmons to waste their gifts on movies like this. Clarke should maybe stick to television with Taylor, and Simmons should just do Whiplash (2014) again. The believability factor for the piece on a scale from 1-100, 100 being real and 1 being Schwarzenegger's acting ability, is 0. The special effects look the same as in Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) and the stunts are as realistic as the special effects. The entire movie is an action movie with no substance, but it did seem like it almost tried to possibly add some notion of dramatic effect found in normal movies that actually happen to be good, such as a nuanced love story and questions of destiny. Unfortunately, they used time travel to do it.