= 4 stars

Starring Kirk Douglas, Laurence Olivier, Peter Ustinov
Directed by Stanley Kubrick

Synopsis

Slave Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) leads a rebellion against the Roman empire.

The Good

• Amazing set pieces: epic battles featuring hundreds if not thousands of extras, tense gladiator flights, and Spartacus addressing his army in parallel with the Romans readying for battle.
• Core theme of the oppressed and virtuous overthrowing a cruel, undeserving ruling class, plus dramatic irony in the Romans being done in by their own creation of warrior slaves.
• Kirk Douglas as the well-oiled, gruff, and headstrong slave Spartacus, humanized through occasional weakness and difficulty carrying the burden of leadership. Lawrence Olivier plays a deliciously smarmy, pompous Roman general. There’s also an off-kilter appeal in the non-period, Bronx-accented Tony Curtis as a magician / musician, who is nearly seduced in a particularly odd homoerotic bathing scene hinting at the debauchery of the Roman empire.
• Rather bleak ending; but definitely appreciate the makers’ conviction in avoiding a more hopeful conclusion.

The Bad

• Occasionally cheesy in spots: Spartacus’ love interest (Jean Simmons), the old-school soundtrack, glaringly obvious matte backgrounds. There’s little trace of Kubrick’s distinctive directorial style.

Conclusion

Solid entertainment, particularly in the excellently directed battle scenes and classical acting, but don’t expect any Kubrick flourishes. Recommended.

IMDB: Spartacus
Wikipedia: Spartacus
Rotten Tomatoes: Spartacus

= 5 stars

Starring Charlie Sheen, Willem Dafoe, Tom Berenger
Directed by Oliver Stone

Synopsis

Chris Taylor (Charlie Sheen), a willing American soldier in the Vietnam war, finds the entire experience more than he bargained for.

The Good

• Well-known actors in early roles: Willem Dafoe, Forest Whittaker, Charlie Sheen, and Johnny Depp. Sheen is particularly amusing as the naive newbie soon considered useless by his unit. It’s twisted casting as father Martin starred in the Vietnam masterpiece Apocalypse Now.
• Oliver Stone’s — who served in Vietnam — heavy handed, serious, and epic.
• Captures the sleep-deprived, constant paranoia of guerrilla warfare, with enemies real and imagined lurking everywhere, graphic violence, booby traps, and emotional shifts from nervous anticipation to sudden violence.
• More cohesive plot than Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter. The stress of war causes the platoon leadership to crumble and move toward paranoia, revenge and amorality, and innocent civilians become collateral damage.
• Soundtrack: Samuel Barber’s Adagio for Strings.

The Bad

• Occasionally comes across as Apocalypse Now light, usually during Charlie Sheen’s narration that takes one out of the grim proceedings.

Conclusion

What ultimately earned this film’s fifth star is a question posed near the end: why do men kill each other, and when is it justified? Irrational fear, self-defense, insanity, hate, revenge, and justice — it’s all here in spades. War may merely be a cover — a convenient excuse to justify unspeakable acts. Highly recommended.

IMDB: Platoon
Wikipedia: Platoon
Rotten Tomatoes: Platoon

= 4 stars

Starring Phillip Baker Hall, John C. Reilly, Gwyneth Paltrow
Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson

Synopsis

Old time gambler Sydney (Philip Baker Hall) takes John (John C. Reilly) under his wing.

The Good

• Paltrow as smudged cocktail waitress Clementine with a shady second job, and the incomparable Samuel Jackson as aggressive gambler Jimmy. But best is the rock-solid Philip Baker Hall as Sydney, a man whose ragged face and somber demeanor initially indicate world-weary experience, but eventually, something else entirely.
• Gambling as metaphor for life itself — Sydney is a high roller (established in a highly amusing craps scene featuring Philip Seymour Hoffman) not only at the casino but in his personal life, bringing Clementine and John together and dangerously extricating them from a sticky situation.
• Comes together in the last half hour with a complicated feeling of Sydney’s initial alturism, turning his earlier motivation upside down and pushing that gambling = life metaphor to include death.
• Anderson’s amazingly good direction for a first picture: simple techniques communicating plot developments, like a camera zoom in to indicate the formation of thought , a character close up to indicate a particular mind-state, or a long tracking shot when three people sneak out of a motel. I got the feeling Anderson knows exactly what he’s doing with the camera and why.

The Bad

• Plot feels minimal and aimless in the middle; requiring some fortitude to reach the interesting payoff.
• John C. Reilly is a bit overshadowed by the other three performances.

Conclusion

Although the plot falters a bit and doesn’t live up to the darkest film noir, three solid performances and Paul Thomas Anderson’s confident direction kept me watching until the end, where a pretty solid surprise awaits. A character study to savor and remember. Recommended.

IMDB: Hard Eight
Wikipedia: Hard Eight
Rotten Tomatoes: Hard Eight

= 3 stars

Starring Aaron Johnson, Kristin Scott Thomas, Anne-Marie Duff
Directed by Sam Taylor-Wood

Synopsis

Taken in by his aunt Mimi (Kristin Scott Thomas), teenager John Lennon (Aaron Johnson) is going nowhere fast, until his estranged, free-spirited mother Julia (Anne-Marie Duff) introduces him to rock and roll.

The Good

• Mines the unexplored, pre-Beatles portion of Lennon’s life (out of necessity with other periods duly covered). John is fifteen, hasn’t yet met Paul, and has yet to pick up a musical instrument. But instead of pop stardom, drama arises through a tug-of-war between Lennon’s carefree birth mother Julia, responsible Aunt Mimi, and absent father figures. It’s suggested Lennon resorted to music not only for the sex, drugs, and rock and roll, but as an escape from a deeply troubled life defined by a lack of options.
• Deftly lends power to the forgettable early Lennon / McCartney song “In Spite Of All The Danger” in one scene establishing The Beatles as John’s new, surrogate family, with long-sought emotional comfort found through his art.
• The nervous and out-of-sorts Johnson is passable as Lennon, but the real key performance is Scott-Thomas as the steely, grounded Aunt Mimi.
• Inspires a revisit of the average Backbeat featuring the early Beatles in Hamburg — no mean feat.

The Bad

• Paul and George look way too young.
• Meandering direction; could’ve used an aggressive editor.
• No Beatles music as none existed at the time.

Conclusion

Grounded by Scott Thomas’ performance, Nowhere Boy pulls off an interesting trick: it humanizes its subject by downplaying the standard rags-to-riches musical biopic plot, and is therefore more able to delve into the pain behind the pop tunes. Without half-baked covers of The Beatles’ familiar hits — we feel the pain driving those primal screams contained within “Mother.”

IMDB: Nowhere Boy
Wikipedia: Nowhere Boy
Rotten Tomatoes: Nowhere Boy

= 3 stars

Starring Jodie Foster, Cherrie Currie, Scott Baio
Directed by Adrian Lyne

Synopsis

Life’s hardly a bowl of curried cherries for four teenage girls in LA.

The Good

• Foster as precocious Jeanie, the sole girl with brains among a sea of idiots. An argument scene between Jeanie and her distracted mother Mary (Sally Kellerman) displays Foster’s acting chops. Cherrie Currie (lead singer of The Runaways) is passable as the messed up, impulsive girl Annie with an abusive cop father.
• Some amusement in the seventies setting; hung-over parents emerging from the free-for-all sixties and failing at proper parenting. Also fun is the proto-hair-metal band (Angel) sporting glammy poses.

The Bad

• Silly, cliched, and pointless plot drags; the girls sport sassy attitude, are forced to grow up too fast, have a party and trash the house, do drugs, all overlaid with awful dialog and cheesy seventies light rock music.
• In a so-bad-its-good climactic moment, Scott Baio on a skateboard pushes a scary dude through a convenience-store window.
• Not a good sign when a major character dies and you’ve past the point of caring.

Conclusion

Really only one viewing reason — Jodie Foster’s smart acting amid the surrounding awfulness. That was good enough for me; don’t think it’ll suffice for you.

IMDB: Foxes
Wikipedia: Foxes
Rotten Tomatoes: Foxes

= 2 stars

Starring Roy Thinnes, Ian Hendry, Lynn Loring
Directed by Robert Parrish

Synopsis

A space agency discovers a parallel Earth orbiting the other side of the sun.

The Good

• Somehwat amusing, dated special effects, done with miniatures, recalling Thunderbirds Are Go or early James Bond movies.
• The nature of the mysterious planet is slowly revealed in subtle, psychodramatic ways like reversed type, occasionally reminiscent of The Prisoner.

The Bad

• Slow. First half features the unnecessary machinations getting the astronauts space-bound. I nearly gave up before getting to all the bigger ideas are loaded into the second half.
• Some dreamy space sequences seem inspired by 2001: A Space Odyssey — but are hardly as timelessly convincing.

Conclusion

Great premise, but lacking in all else, most notably execution. Remake material.

IMDB: Journey to the Far Side of the Sun
Wikipedia: Journey to the Far Side of the Sun
Rotten Tomatoes: Journey to the Far Side of the Sun

= 3 stars

Starring Frederick Stafford, Dany Robin, Karin Dor
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Synopsis

Russian defectors provide American agents intelligence on a Cuban arms deal — that somehow involves the code word “Topaz.”

The Good

• Plays out in real-time as we follow information moving from Soviet defectors to American spies and through documents stolen from the Cubans. These clandestine proceedings are loosely based on events that led up to the Cuban missile crisis.
• Some appropriately tense Hitchcock moments: the camera following a hand grabbing a special suitcase and carrying it out the door, the ensuing, sudden violence, and Cuban soldiers utilizing a camera hidden in a loaf of bread.
• A few nice shots: an arresting image of tortured prisoners recalling Michelangelo’s Pieta, and a woman’s death shot dramatically from above.
• Amusing — albeit stereotypical — national groupings: bearded, gun-toting Cubans,nervous Russians, black-suited, aggressive American G-Men, and the cagey but romantic French.

The Bad

• Tediously long at two hours without enough action to break up scenes of people in suits discussing important matters.
• The unfamiliar cast is nowhere near charismatic as Hitch’s other luminous stars (Cary Grant, James Stewart, Grace Kelly). Andre Devereaux’s (Frederick Stafford) international romantic diversion has little chemistry.

Conclusion

A few interesting moments featuring Hitchcock’s directorial hand — but not required viewing by any means.

IMDB: Topaz
Wikipedia: Topaz
Rotten Tomatoes: Topaz

= 3 stars

Starring Paul Rudd, Elizabeth Banks, Zooey Deschanel
Directed by Jesse Peretz

Synopsis

Three sisters take in their well-meaning but not-very-bright brother Ned (Paul Rudd) after he sells pot to a cop.

The Good

• Solid performances by most, with special mention to Rudd, who lends subtle depth to what could have been a one-note character, making Ned well-meaning and likable, enough so that the cynical, idol-less world looks wrong and you wish more would see things through his rose-colored glasses. Also great is Banks as bossy, unethical sister Miranda, chanelling Parker Posey with less vinegary quirk and more humanity.
• Some genuinely funny moments; enjoyed the running-joke return to the hippie free-range farm, Paul’s conversations with his parole officer, aawkward threesome, and Miranda’s nerdy neighbor Jeremy (Adam Scott), a fan of Dune: The Director’s Cut.
• Dog named Willie Nelson.

The Bad

• Deschanel, slightly miscast as slutty sister Natalie.
• Plot doesn’t delve deeper and darker enough (was Paul dropped on his head as a child? Someone practice kung-fu on the ballerina?)
• Cheesy final moments, tying things up too neatly, plus a corny 500 Days Of Summer style end cap.

Conclusion

Cheesy and a bit too sincere, but I eventually warmed up and just accepted it all, thanks to Rudd’s aw-shucks performance. Sometimes you gotta just let that poor schlub sleep on your couch — even if the spouse says no. Worth a rental.

IMDB: Our Idiot Brother
Wikipedia: Our Idiot Brother
Rotten Tomatoes: Our Idiot Brother

= 5 stars

Starring Delphine Seyrig, Giorgio Albertazzi, Sascha Pitoeff
Directed by Alain Resnais

Synopsis

A man and a married woman may or may not have met and started an affair a year ago.

The Good

• Uniquely sumptuous, majestic visual style, located in a grand, ornate, baroque hotel / mansion with an Edward Gorey garden where impeccably dressed (some dresses designed by Coco Chanel) foreigners live out an isolated, decadent existence, posing for each other and the camera — sometimes frozen like mannequins — in some bizarre kabuki involving a romantic rendezvous. The mix of old and new results in a timeless feel, looking like nothing seen before and uncomfortably familiar.
• Incomprehensible plot, but not because Resnais is a bad director — the images never feel unintentional or randomly strung together. There’s a strong directorial hand hinting at some symbolic intent, even as one grows suspicious there is none. And the cool, detached glamourous style is undeniably planned and controlled. I soon gave up trying to follow things and merely became lost in the luxurious imagery and surreal mood. Everything seems symbolic of something else, some characters possibly unreal or imagined, others ghosts, apparitions, or death itself, the location itself a parallel universe, a movie being made, a dream, nightmare, life, purgatory, or whatever you bring to the experience.
• A slowly drifting camera plus deep focus, and black and white puts one in hypnotic, floating state, echoed by the other worldly performances of all involved.
• You’ll either love it or hate it — something I love in a film.

The Bad

• Makes no sense. Watching the scenes in a different order could even help matters. Subtitles could be turned off as they make little difference.
• The organ music is a little much.

Conclusion

While completely failing in terms of plot and explanation, the otherworldly mood and decadent visuals ultimately won me over. Film is a series of moving images, which although conventionally used for storytelling, can easily fall into chaos that takes one out of a movie. I was never put off or lost by this heady movie — rather, transported. There’s a careful balancing act here, between chance and meaning — something tantalizingly both present and absent simultaneously, and my interest is the dance between the two. Definitely not for everyone, but for those open to the inexplicable — it’s a Magritte painting come to life.

IMDB: Last Year At Marienbad
Wikipedia: Last Year At Marienbad
Rotten Tomatoes: Last Year At Marienbad

= 4 stars

Starring Colin Firth, Julianne Moore, Nicholas Hoult
Directed by Tom Ford

Synopsis

Professor George Falconer (Colin Firth) hasn’t forgotten the death of his partner, Jim.

The Good

• Firth is solid as a George, hiding an inner pain, he’s on screen for most of the film, earning our empathy, and there’s the overarching, stifling burden of being a surely closeted gay man in the sixties, leads his sorrow to be necessarily hidden. Also good is Julianne Moore as George’s vivacious best friend, Charlie.
• Early sixties, nostalgic eye candy, from a Bardot-like student, George’s black horn-rimmed glasses, and quick French New Wave cuts.
• Director Ford is a fashion designer, with a superb visual sense leading to some occasionally, visually arresting moments — a little girl in blue introduced through a reflection on a mirrored bank floor, a close-up on a heavily made-up eye while the other remains plain, and George’s grim oral experimentation with a revolver in a bed and shower set to opera.
• Very effective at depicting George’s point of view; you feel like you’re within George’s head, seeing life through is eyes. This doesn’t happen through POV shots, but a pleasant drifting, away from the tasks at hand to an internal world rife with lush sadness and inner turmoil, reflecting a constantly distracted, contemplative professorial mind. Slow motion indicates George’s savoring of particular moments.

The Bad

• Occasionally random direction; Ford finding his footing with the moving image.
• Odd ending plot-wise, although handled tastefully enough that I barely noticed.

Conclusion

Excellent character study featuring a solid performance by Firth, but that’s expected — the surprise is the rare pleasure of a first-time director lending an unusual and fresh visual point of view. I look forward to Ford’s next film. Recommended.

IMDB: A Single Man
Wikipedia: A Single Man
Rotten Tomatoes: A Single Man

= 2 stars

Starring Josh Brolin, Naomi Watts, Anthony Hopkins
Directed by Woody Allen

Synopsis

Alfie (Anthony Hopkins) divorces Helena (Gemma Jones) while their daughter Sally (Naomi Watts) faces her own marital problems with writer Roy (John Brolin). Hilarity ensues.

Good

• Amusing casting: Lucy Punch as a ditsy love interest, Anthony Hopkins, Naomi Watts, and Freida Pinto. All do the best they can with Allen’s meandering material.

Bad

• Nearly everything has been done better in earlier Allen works: old men ineptly lusting after younger women, a brain-dead call girl, fortune tellers, a grumpy writer, and the London location.
• Hoped the tall dark stranger was death himself who’d arrive to put some of these stock Allen characters out of their misery.
• States from the start that it is about nothing, but it’s worse as it eats up time better spent cleaning the litter box.

Conclusion

Pointless variations on the same old Allen themes, further informing my opinion that Allen should take a year or two off between films. Skip it.

IMDB: You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger
Wikipedia: You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger
Rotten Tomatoes: You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger

= 1 star

Starring Mark Wahlberg, Zooey Deschanel, John Leguizamo
Directed by M. Night Shyamalan

Synopsis

People suddenly start keeling over in Central Park, spurring science teacher Elliot (Mark Wahlberg) and his wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel) to flee the city.

The Good

• Nice cinematography.
• A few scary visuals: people freezing in place as the wind blows around them, and a creepy old, solitary lady living alone in the country.

The Bad

• The reason for the odd deaths is given halfway through, instead of a big surprise at the end, and it’s a rather pathetic one.
• No good reason for Elliot as the main protagonist — although he’s a science teacher, he never posits a knowledgable solution to anything, plus his relationship with the emotionally distant Alma proves hardly compelling.
• Lame plot developments. Anybody heard of gas masks, or at least holding a cloth over your face? Isn’t the young girl sad to be separated from her father? Why do the main characters walk so slowly toward each other during a key moment, instead of running?
• Literally no-one behaves like a genuine human — everyone is uncharacteristically sheep-like, walking as if in a daze, or reacting to death with the dumbfounded look of a deer caught in the headlights. Some entertainment in horror movies is seeing people freak out and panic; that never happens.
• The lame ending hints at a sequel nobody wants to see, plus a heavy feeling of pointlessness — no answers, no solutions, and contrary to the title — nothing happens.

Conclusion

With a one-note plot better suited to a single, short episode of The Twilight Zone, the overall resultant takeaway is Shyamalan as an inept writer and director. He should be reprimanded for wasting everyone’s time.

IMDB: The Happening
Wikipedia: The Happening
Rotten Tomatoes: The Happening

= 2 stars

Starring Aaron Eckhart, Ramon Rodriguez, Bridget Moynahan
Directed by Jonathan Liebesman

Synopsis

Aliens invade earth and lay waste to Los Angeles. Hilarity ensues.

The Good

• Okay visual feel: a gritty, in-your-face mix of Battlestar Galactica (title cards appear in a similar font) and Black Hawk Down.
• War Of The Worlds from the military point of view.

The Bad

• Logical inconguities pile on, from ill-equipped ground units, delaying air support for three hours when it’s clear the fast-moving aliens will wipe out everything by then, a veterinarian dissecting an alien without fear of otherworldly germs, and Earth being the only planet in the known universe with liquid water (ever heard of melting ice?), and if so, why invade the coasts? Just drop a tube in the middle of the Pacific and have at it. Lastly, there’s the obligatory alien “control point” which must exist in order to end the film and create a hero out of our hapless main character.
• Big mistake having the marine unit happen upon civilian kids, as a cardinal rule in this type of flick: kids can’t die — taking away much of the danger.
• The biggest offense: unremarkable characters spouting progressively cheesy dialogue to where you don’t care about their fate — let alone Los Angeles itself. And the final scene sets up a sequel (Take Back Los Angeles) I don’t want to see.

Conclusion

Despite an initially compelling urgency, simmers down to a disappointing update of an alien invasion B-movie. While the special effects have definitely improved, other things — all bad — remain sadly the same. Skip it.

IMDB: Battle Los Angeles
Wikipedia: Battle Los Angeles
Rotten Tomatoes: Battle Los Angeles

= 1 star

Starring Bruce Willis, Radha Mitchell, Rosamund Pike
Directed by Jonathan Mostow

Synopsis

In a future world where people stay at home and experience the world through robotic “surrogates,” FBI agents Tom (Bruce Willis) and Peters (Radha Mitchell) investigate the death of an individual who died when his robotic equivalent was destroyed.

The Good

• Amusing premise of people eschewing the risk of life itself and choosing to experience everything behind the walls of technology.
• Nice to see Bruce Willis return to sci-fi after Twelve Monkeys, and Rosamund Pike is rather easy on the eyes — yeah, I got nothing.

The Bad

• The plot dictates that instead of watching real characters, we’re stuck watching their plastic doppelgangers instead, which are facially blank robots with stilted movements and therefore, prove uninteresting acting wise. Also, the fact that they could be blown up with no ill consequences drains much suspense.
• Virtual reality (Second Life style) seems more likely; where people’s avatars could really bend things to extremes. With Surrogates, you’re still limited to the physical world, and it sure seems expensive to maintain all these robots. As a result, I never fully bought into this future vision; this is science fiction with heavy emphasis on the “fiction” vs. Minority Report, where the world mostly seems within the realm of future possibility.
• Unremarkable directing wise; bears the marks of the comic book inspiration with perpetually tilted camara angles for no reason and cheesy, unrealistic feel. Special effects also seem second-rate, as if the effects team knew this film was doomed and gave up about halfway through.

Conclusion

Minority Report plus Westworld brought down a few notches with heavy doses of The Sixth Day — this flick is a surrogate of so many others. Skip it.

IMDB: Surrogates
Wikipedia: Surrogates
Rotten Tomatoes: Surrogates

= 4 stars

Starring Joel McCrea, Veronica Lake, Robert Warwick
Directed by Preston Sturges

Synopsis

Director Sullivan (Joel McCrea) wants to make a serious film, and decides unwisely to go undercover to experience true suffering.

The Good

• Solid premise laid out in the first scene, resulting in slapstick comedy in the first half, specifically a looney car chase featuring a cook being splattered by food, and sassy dialogue between “The Girl” and Sullivan, specifically when his true identity is revealed.
• Nods to Chaplin’s City Lights and Modern Times.
• Seems to run dry with a half hour left to go, but that’s where things really get interesting. Sullivan’s identity becomes muddled, and he truly experiences the suffering he was looking for. During this stretch, the film’s tone abruptly shifts to a Grapes Of Wrath style document of the poor and downtrodden.
• Mentions the fictional book O Brother Where Art Thou?, which was turned into the Coen brothers film — it’s the movie Sullivan would have gone on to make.

The Bad

• Veronica Lake outshines McCrea to a large degree; could be that iconic wavy hair.

Conclusion

The mind twists after viewing: Sullivan believes comedies help us forget our troubles, but this alleged comedy has staying power because of a really bleak middle stretch, which made me appreciate the surrounding funny parts. The end takeaway is this structure: we better appreciate life’s comedy when we know its sorrows. I may return to later to grant that extra star. Recommended.

IMDB: Sullivan’s Travels
Wikipedia: Sullivan’s Travels
Rotten Tomatoes: Sullivan’s Travels

= 4 stars

Starring George Clooney, Shailene Woodley, Judy Greer
Directed by Alexander Payne

Synopsis

After his wife’s boating accident, Hawaii lawyer and land baron Matt King (George Clooney) reconnects with his two moody daughters.

The Good

• Clooney shows more heart than usual as the stressed-out, disconnected father, but there’s also a surprisingly strong counterweight by Shailene Woodley as eldest daughter Alexandra. Expect Oscar nominations.
• Thought provoking, zen-like ambiguity — the best Hawaii private schools produce spoiled and entitled children, disconnected from the surrounding paradise. Matt’s seemingly petty hunt for a real estate agent unites the family. Matt worries about spoiling his daughters, while his wife’s accident points out how you can’t take things with you. And layered over everything is the grander implications of the land sale — it would set up the entire family and extended relatives for life, but at what cost — to the family, or the state of Hawaii, that has enough golf courses, subdivisions, and tourist traps. Every choice for these characters has unintentional consequences; there is no right path.
• Gets its wealthy slice of Hawaii largely right, particularly in comparison with movies focused on surfing and Waikiki. The open-air houses are accurate, as is the Bishop Street businessman wardrobe (subdued aloha shirts, khakis, and loafers), compact cars, and lackadaisical dispositions.
• As with Payne’s other movies (About Schmidt, Sideways) the Hawaii setting is a character in its own right, and is a part of Matt’s psyche — he’s unable to get in a car and drive away to Napa to escape, nor must he embark on an extended journey to reconnect with family members he barely knows. That everyone is trapped on several islands within close proximity means Matt must deal. And what becomes of the family’s slice of paradise is a major question.
• The best scenes contain a simple power that washes over a few moments afterward — someone caught on camera at their worst at the bottom of a pool, Matt and his daughter in a confrontation — and united in a common cause, they finally look like a family, and a non-family member saying the things no relative was able to say.
• Eschews a soundtrack of emotionally manipulative strings for authentic Hawaiian music.

The Bad

• Although he provides solid laughs, Alexandria’s friend Sid is rather superfluous and is reduced to over-qualified baby sitter.
• The upper-class slice of Hawaii is a bit too segregated to provide a personal wish for an honest depiction of Hawaii life — even Punahou grad Obama hits up shave ice instead of ice cream. Also lacking is ethnic diversity — Brian Speer could have been a local instead of the guy from Scooby Doo.
• Some plot quibbles regarding serendipity, and lacks a cathartic moment before the final frames — or, I didn’t realize which scene was “that moment” until the credits rolled.

Conclusion

I grew up in Hawaii and found it difficult to stay objective during these flickers of my childhood. But The Descendants reaffirms a supressed feeling that I’d have to return to Hawaii to figure some things out before I die — I’m not sure exactly what, but it’s there, trapped between mountain and beach in a rainy, green valley alternately lit by glorious sunshine. My purpose is unclear, but the destination eternal. Recommended.

IMDB: The Descendants
Wikipedia: The Descendants
Rotten Tomatoes: The Descendants

= 5 stars

Starring Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Melanie Laurent
Directed by Quentin Tarantino

Synopsis

In Nazi-occupied France, Jewish survivor Shosanna (Melanie Laurent) and American Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) seek revenge.

The Good

• Plot justification for Tarantiono’s trademark over the top violence: this is war and we’re killing Nazis. And with the addition of war time espionage, Tarantino’s penchant for overly long dialogue becomes all the more compelling — there’s a running theme of secrets and truth suddenly revealed.
• Several solid performances, from the broadly-painted Nazi “Jew Hunter” (Christoph Waltz) who grows increasingly interesting as the film continues, and his American, John Wayne-esqe nemesis, Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) played as a classic American war hero, complete with jutting lower lip and uncultured mangling of foreign languages. Also notable are the introspective Shosanna and crushed glamour of the B-movie named Bridget von Hammersmark.
• About halfway through, I doubted Tarantino could pull off a good conclusion, but the four, loosely connected short stories come together satisfyingly at the end — yes, it disregards historical accuracy but becomes a twisted yet cathartically satisfying modern day revenge fantasy, with Americans, Jews, and African-American characters become symbolic of entire populations trying to wipe away distasteful history.
• No show-stopping, egotistical Tarantino cameo.
• Amusing spaghetti western references.
• Favorite segments: a tense meal where a someone recognizes a Nazi and is forced to eat strudel, and a long painful bar scene where American soldiers disguised as Nazis make awkward small talk with fear of being found out.

The Bad

• Some odd musical choices, namely a period-inappropriate David Bowie song and some crunchy guitars. Nothing seemed personally as relevatory as Pulp Fiction’s Dick Dale string work.
• Unnecessary bits: documentary-style explanations (narrated by Samuel Jackson), Mike Meyers, and overlaid names and arrows. Someone needs to trust the intelligence of his audience.

Conclusion

Succeeds, due to Tarantino’s inspired idea to place his trademark talky violence in World War II, stand out performances, and his ability to weave several plot elements into a satisfying conclusion. First-rate entertainment — despite blatant disregard for historical accuracy.

IMDB: Inglourious Basterds
Wikipedia: Inglourious Basterds
Rotten Tomatoes: Inglourious Basterds

= 5 stars

Starring Jack Lemmon, Shirley MacLaine, Fred MacMurray
Directed by Billy Wilder

Synopsis

Lowly office worker C.C. Baxter (Jack Lemmon) scales the corporate ladder by loaning his apartment to womanizing executives.

The Good

• Fun peeks into sixties office life: married businessmen and their extramarital affairs, heavy drinking during office parties, and boy’s-club executives who excel at doing nothing all day.
• The vast, dehumanizing distance between executives and their underling, average workers is represented by an institution-like, anonymous office building with identical desks for drones and private offices and a bathroom key for the higher-ups. The upper floor where managers play seems like a tantalizing brass ring, but the film ultimately questions the value of corporate-ladder-climbing when morality is the price.
• Lemmon’s variety-filled performance, from nervous fighting of a cold, to a bowler-wearing, sulky drunk. He’s magic with simple props like TV dinners and Kleenex.
• The apartment location allows for some colorful neighbors — a Jewish doctor who comes to Baxter’s aid provides a needed moral compass.

The Bad

• MacLaine nails elevator girl Fran Kubelik, focusing on the sadder side of her character (one scene where a co-worker slings not-so-subtle insults is particularly withering) but something about Fran’s change of heart in the film’s final, crucial stretch felt a bit off.

Conclusion

Despite a slightly unsatisfying conclusion, the vast majority is spot on with an interesting statement about work taking precedence over happiness. Plus, my present Mad Men love brings out dusky, serious undertones, improving this film immensely on second viewing. Highly recommended.

IMDB: The Apartment
Wikipedia: The Apartment
Rotten Tomatoes: The Apartment

= 4 stars

Starring Paul Giamatti, Hope Davis, James Urbaniak
Directed by Shari Springer Berman, Robert Pulcini

Synopsis

Grumpy Cleveland file clerk Harvey Pekar (Paul Giamatti) writes autobiographical comics based on his ordinary life.

The Good

• Pekar’s strong, irascible personality, but things really get going when we meet the surrounding characters in Pekar’s life: underground cartoonist Robert Crumb (James Urbaniak) who helps Pekar with his first comic, Toby the bizarro super nerd (Jodah Friedlander), and oddball wife Joyce (Hope Davis).
• Real life, comic books, and movies overlap in interesting ways: real Harvey, Toby, and wife Joyce appear.
• Truth is stranger than fiction: Pekar meets his future wife through comics, Toby appears on MTV, Harvey fights with David Letterman, and battles cancer.

The Bad

• Some of the comic art animations are a bit much, and unnecessarily interrupt the story’s dramatic flow. There should have been enough faith in the story and acting to carry things.
• Fades in momentum during the latter third and fails to reach a wholly satisfying conclusion.

Conclusion

Great comic book adaptation; I just wish the makers trusted the story enough to forgo a few cutesy gimmicks. Still, recommended. Pekar is a “character” in more ways than one.

IMDB: American Splendor
Wikipedia: American Splendor
Rotten Tomatoes: American Splendor

= 3 stars

Starring Danny McBride, Ben Best, Mary Jane Bostic
Directed by Jody Hill

Synopsis

Egotistical Tae Kwon Do instructor Fred Simmons (Danny McBride) makes the most of his small town martial arts studio while everything else comes up short.

The Good

• Fred is an amusing combination of cocky and clueless, taking himself way too seriously and playing up past glory while the surrounding evidence (teaching kids, infomercial-style demos, an eye-rolling spouse) points to suburban mediocrity. McBride’s blue-collar, dead pan delivery of self-deluded denial provides most if not all the comedy.
• Some amusing situations and dialogue; loved the Martial arts convention featuring a B movie actor and creepy fifth level black belt friend, and the bizarre phrase “get untired, because there’s a two for one crab leg special at captain O’Landers.” Huh?

The Bad

• I can handle dark comedy and wacky perversions, but there’s a slightly inappropriate mean streak (beating up kids, a band member singing a bad song, and pissing on a wedding ring).
• Plot ultimately doesn’t do the funny characters justice. Fred doesn’t have much of a character arc, and after a really funny start, things just collapse into mean, juvenile humor.

Conclusion

Despite a truly funny main character and some funny lines and situations, not enough plot to take things to the next level of comedy — no black belt earned here. Passable rental.

IMDB: The Foot Fist Way
Wikipedia: The Foot Fist Way
Rotten Tomatoes: The Foot Fist Way

= 1 star

Starring Kristen Bell, Josh Duhamel
Directed by Mark Steven Johnson

Synopsis

Workaholic Beth (Kristen Bell) attends her sister’s wedding in Rome and steals several coins from a fountain, causing several random strangers to fall for her.

The Good

• Kristen Bell bobs about admirably like Reese Witherspoon’s kid sister; definitely deserves better material.
• Something humorously true regarding the male ego in Beth’s suitors utilizing personal, pathetic talents — the enamored artist presents a ridiculous, unflattering drawing of Beth as Munch’s The Scream, and a cut-rate magician character (Jon Heder) ties himself up in her apartment as a sad surprise.
• The rapid-fire horrible first five minutes provide ample warning to hit eject.

The Bad

• A small segment of Woody Allen’s Alice featuring several men falling for one women due to Chinese herbs felt more successful than this much longer excerise.
• Terrible, paint by numbers plot and lazy writing; you can feel your brain cells shrink with every scene.
• I hoped the male lead (Josh Duhamel) would get struck by lightning.
• Hints of shame on Danny DeVito and Anjelica Huston’s faces. Both know this is nowhere near Roman Holiday.

Conclusion

Poor Kristen Bell. Almost slips into so-bad-its-good territory — skip it.

IMDB: When In Rome
Wikipedia: When In Rome
Rotten Tomatoes: When In Rome

0 stars

Starring George Lopez, CGI dogs
Directed by Alex Zamm

Synopsis

Papi, Chloe, and a gang of puppies work to save a house from foreclosure.

The Good

• Some cute dogs in ridiculous outfits.

The Bad

• The first film’s voice cast (Drew Barrymore, Edward James Olmos) is notably absent save for George Lopez, who reprises the voice of Papi. Chloe’s owner, played by a different actress, immediately vanishes to the Amazon with her mother, leaving all new human characters to deal with the never-ending cutesy antics of Frankenstein CG and real dogs. All the money saved from star salaries equals Disney laughing all the way to the bank, with us chumps hitting fast-forward, searching in vain for something on par with the first installment.
• I gave up halfway through, whereas I at least crawled on all fours through the original.
• Spouse — who loved the first one — gave this one a paws-down.

Conclusion

I could write a longer review about my general distaste for CGI, Hollywood sequel-itis, the corporate ethics of passing off a crap sequel for sure profit, and the head-slapping comedy stylings of George Lopez — but the less said about these kibbles and bits the better. Skip it.

IMDB: Beverly Hills Chihuahua 2
Wikipedia: Beverly Hills Chihuahua 2
Rotten Tomatoes: Beverly Hills Chuhuahua 2

= 5 stars

Starring Catherine Deneuve, Jean Sorey, Genevieve Page
Directed by Luis Bunuel

Synopsis

Reserved newlywed Severine (Catherine Deneuve) acts on her sexual fantasies by becoming a daytime prostitute while her husband is at work.

The Good

• Although the above synopsis sounds like a skin flick, there are no explicit sex scenes and hardly any nudity. Despite that, I still found everything extremely erotic and sensual, with the feelings being more situational and psychological. It had me thinking about power; who gets to do what whom and whether the receiver wants them to. And some of the most titillating content is through surreal images: a woman in white violently splattered with mud, a box containing something buzzing that is never revealed, an obviously phallic cane that becomes destructive, or the mewling of cats and ringing sleigh bells.
• Dreams are the foundation, and Severine’s are violent and masochistic, in contrast to being shy and reserved in real life. But her waking life begins to be informed by her dreams to where they blur together, and oddly enough, this could be a female version of Inception — there is suggestion that the entire exercise is an erotic dream itself.
• Highly symbolic, flat, cipher-like characters: the blonde Severine becomes any stifled woman / reluctant sex object, her clueless husband any man, and an Italian thug lust itself. Severine’s upper-class wealth may have desexualised her.
• Bunuel’s direction plays the part of the voyeur, leading to some Hitchcock-like moments; Severine’s dragging feet resemble The Birds, her taut hairdo upon first entering a brothel reminiscent of Madeline’s in Vertigo, and Deneuve evokes Hitchcock’s trademark icy blonde. There are perfectly-framed moments where the position of the characters in foreground and background sum up their relationship and even the film itself.

The Bad

• Nonsense plot; Severine’s reckless journey is sure to be discovered. Although, perhaps she wants her transgressions to be revealed — and punished for them.

Conclusion

Despite its so-so plot, contains scenes that will haunt me forever. Godard once said “all you need for a movie is a girl and a gun.” This film has its Belle, but what I believe to be the gun, is left to your own twisted imagination. Highly recommended.

IMDB: Belle De Jour
Wikipedia: Belle De Jour
Rotten Tomatoes: Rotten Tomatoes

= 4 stars

Starring Donald Sutherland, Sally Kellerman, Elliott Gould
Directed by Robert Altman

Synopsis

Chaos reigns in a mobile military hospital during the Korean War.

The Good

• Delicious contrast between the bloody seriousness of war and a frat-boy party atmosphere — One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest + Duck Soup + Platoon. Someone has prescribed comedy to dull the horrors of war. The claustrophobic, bare-bones environment destroys privacy, and there are several jokes involving folks knowing and getting into everyone else’s business.
• Several serious actors playing nut-ball characters: Donald Sutherland as “Hawkeye” Pierce sports deft, subtle comic timing, but also notable are Elliot Gould (“Trapper” John) and Sally Kellerman, whose aloof “Hot-Lips” Houlihan becomes the brunt of pent-up, juvenile curiosity and pranks. Her one, insane rant to a superior officer is worth the rental alone.
• Altman’s exhilirating, chaotic direction makes full use of the messy, claustrophobic locations with bizarre camera positions, nonsense editing, and endless number of zooms. Surely inspired Paul Thomas Anderson.

The Bad

• Just before the climactic football game, some indoor shots resembling a staged television show took me completely out of the movie. Yes, this movie inspired a long-running television show, but it didn’t premiere within the movie itself.
• The point “war sucks and so does authority” is evident within the first half hour, and it’s rammed home repeatedly via numerous blunt jokes.

Conclusion

My prescription: clear your memory of the television show before viewing. Concentrate on Altman’s organized-chaos direction. Only then will the cynical humor, bizarre characters, and crappy environment retain their rebellious bite and provide relief.

IMDB: MASH
Wikipedia: MASH
Rotten Tomatoes: MASH

= 4 stars

Starring Robert De Niro, Christopher Walken, Meryl Streep
Directed by Michael Cimino

Synopsis

In a small Pennsylvania town, just-married Steven (John Savage) leaves for Vietnam with friends Michael (Robert De Niro) and Nick (Christopher Walken).

The Good

• Raw yet solid performances from a young Walken, De Niro and Streep. De Niro is uncharacteristically reserved until exploding during an insane round of Russian roulette.
• From the start, we know bad things are in store for the young men just in how the small town is presented: a trailer near a gruesome metal factory marring the skyline, a character sees a reflection in a cracked mirror, an alcohol-fueled wedding featuring a pregnant bride features a few drops of red spilling on her dress, and a silent Green Beret who can only say “Phuket.” These working-class lads have little concept of how Vietnam will affect them, considering it a variation on their regular deer-hunting trips.
• The early camaraderie is shattered by a shocking second act, where the friends end up prisoners of war, stripped of their humanity. Each reacts in different ways to the prospect of sudden death.
• The first American movie to tackle the then-taboo subject of Vietnam, paving the way for superior efforts like Apocalypse Now.
• The third act covering the aftermath plays out like The Best Years Of Our Lives, with each character adjusting to life back home with decidedly mixed results.

The Bad

• Often drawn-out and sometimes tedious direction, with disgustingly graphic war scenes — reminiscent of Herzog’s worst attributes.
• The final stretch wasn’t as satisflying as the start; wanted some dialogue trying to make sense of it all.

Conclusion

Although overlong, the contrast between three acts and great performances by Walken, De Niro, and Streep make this worth a spin — of a DVD, not a gun barrel.

IMDB: The Deer Hunter
Wikipedia: The Deer Hunter
Rotten Tomatoes: The Deer Hunter

= 5 stars

Starring Bruce Willis, Haley Joel Osment, Toni Collette
Directed by M. Night Shyamalan

Synopsis

Child psychologist Malcolm Crowe (Bruce Willis) takes on the unusual case of a shy, frightened boy Cole (Haley Joel Osment).

The Good

• More emotional resonance than other horror-movies-with-gifted-kids films, mostly due to solid acting by Osment and Collette. Their last scene where the Malcolm comforts his mother is sold through performance alone; despite dialogue laden with hokey traps.
• The “twist” is genuinely surprising and satisfying, achieved through skillful distraction — Cole’s story isn’t the only one being told. Also amusing that the evidence was before our eyes the entire time.
• Once the “twist” is revealed, it’s clear the first scene’s purpose is to present as a past example of a child with the same gifts. The initial scene has a different resonance once the “twist” is known.
• Nice directorial touches, reminiscent of Kubrick and Hitchcock; the camera sliding to the left before a character shoots himself, a stuttering teacher filmed from Cole’s point of view, a balloon drifting up a Vertigo-like staircase. The world of the non-living is indicated by the color red. Many creepy moments are simple, visual thrills — a brief image of a something surreal and scary, without any crazy CG effects. Personally the scariest moment features Malcom merely up the sound on an old recording trying to hear something unusual — our imagination fills in the blanks and causes the chills.

The Bad

• So good that Shyamalan received the freedom to make many subsequent, and progressively worse films, none living up to the promise of this instant classic.

Conclusion

A rare movie where the “twist” literally turns it into a completely different experience on second viewing. It’s like a horror and love story simultaneously, and easily Shyamalan’s best.

IMDB: The Sixth Sense
Wikipedia: The Sixth Sense
Rotten Tomatoes: The Sixth Sense

= 2 stars

Starring Robert De Niro, Drew Barrymore, Kate Beckinsale
Directed by Kirk Jones

Synopsis

Widower Frank Goode (Robert De Niro), feeling estranged from his four adult children scattered across the country, decides to pay each a surprise visit.

The Good

• De Niro does the best he can with this About Schmidt–like turn as a retired, out of touch, well-meaning rural American type. Still, this is a long, long way from Travis Bickle.
• Has something to say about the fracturing of the typical American family, each member distracted from “what really matters” in their own way.
• Gets better at the very end as the family deals with one son’s less-than-ideal situation.

The Bad

• Predictably maudlin / heavy-handed direction, lingering on certain scenes in the wrong way, forced emotion (one scene featuring child actors = bathroom break), and way too many scenes of telephone lines — Frank made the casing of those wires — we get it already.
• Weak characters: Frank is exposed as a sad hypocrite, expecting honesty from his kids, yet lies to his doctor and puts his own life in danger. He also pushes his kids to be better when he himself admits he had no ambition when he was their age. The kids are wholly generic, each providing their own variation on dad’s pattern of hiding things and feeling guilty while doing so.

Conclusion

Over the credits plays a recent, competent, yet entirely forgettable Paul McCartney song — summing up just about everything contained within the preceding film. The writers are getting at something here, but the whole run-of-the-mill enterprise left me feeling decidedly un-fine.

IMDB: Everybody’s Fine
Wikipedia: Everybody’s Fine
Rotten Tomatoes: Everybody’s Fine

= 2 stars

Starring Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, Tony Roberts
Directed by Herbert Ross

Synopsis

Lonely, neurotic film critic Allan (Woody Allen) takes dating advice from married friends Dick (Tony Roberts) and Linda (Diane Keaton)… and an imaginary mentor, Humphrey Bogart.

The Good

• Filmed in San Francisco, a welcome change of pace from Allen’s usual Manhattan.
• Early, awkward yet endearing chemistry between a young Keaton and Allen.
• One funny slapstick scene where Allen fails to impress a potential date.

The Bad

• The hopeless-romantic Casablanca references don’t work that well, because said film is a masterpiece on so many levels — while this sex-romp is unquestionably not. While Allen’s intelligent-yet-sex-crazed contradictions are vaguely comparable to Bogart’s hero / cad persona — Allen’s comedy style doesn’t match up in any way. At worst, Allen devalues Casablanca’s iconic ending, equating a political choice for greater good with a self-centered extramarital affair.
• Haphazard direction and meandering plot.
• Most of the jokes and situations come off as sketches looking for a punchline, and are better explored in Allen’s later work.

Conclusion

Only interesting for some glimmers of conceptual ideas Allen would more capably explore in future films, most notably the genesis of the Allen-Keaton partnership. Other than that, skip it.

= 5 stars

Starring Ned Beatty, Ronee Blakley, Keith Carradine
Directed by Robert Altman

Synopsis

Third party presidential candidate Hal Phillip Walker campaigns in Nashville, where a cadre of individuals connected to the town’s music industry make their home.

The Good

• Epic in scope, the cast of twenty or more unique characters encompasses so many levels that it could be a Studs Terkel like slice of America itself. This is the reason why films with numerous characters and intercutting plot lines are often referred to as “Altman-esque.” Sprawling, cutting between each story in a way that one might have to watch it several times just to get all the stories and relationships between characters straight. The standouts this time around were the fragile singer Barbara Jean (Ronee Blakely), news reporter Opal (Geraldine Chaplin) and womanizing musician Tom (Keith Carradine).
• Occasionally stunning direction, a mix between calculated movements and organic improvisation, shot in a nearly documentary style at times. Particularly interesting are Altman’s trademark zooms, and funny ways of linking scenes together — a man’s sobbing transitions into another character’s laughter, a junkyard pile of cars precedes another featuring a racetrack. Dialogue collides into each other reflecting the way people actually talk. One wonders what was scripted vs. improvised vs. worked out in editing.
• Tons of music, so much that the film could be seen as a musical, as the choices of songs are appropriate to what the characters are going through. Through that viewpoint, it’s a completely naturalistic one, where many of the actors are musicians and they blend seamlessly together. Actors and musicians both fade into the mix of normal people and seem like organic parts of everything around them.
• Nearly three hours long, but the ending proved worth the wait. There are two amazing film moments near the end, first where three women each think a performer is singing about them, and second, a fly wanders into one character’s performance, indicating something random is about to happen.
• Held my interest despite being no big country music fan, I came to appreciate the directness of the lyrics and their resulting emotion.

The Bad

N/A.

Conclusion

Earlier I mentioned my love of Easy Rider and its vision of America. Nashville is like a superior sequel (the Jeff Goldblum character drives an Easy Rider style motorcycle), the town of Nashville being a metaphor for America itself, touching on our uneasy relationship with fame, the media, the abuse of talent, and always hoping for a better tomorrow despite the terrible things endured each day, in a way that seems more relevant today than it may have during the seventies. The film is so big, I can’t even write a review that encompasses my feelings. I guess I’ll just listen to the soundtrack until inevitably watching it again.

IMDB: Nashville
Wikipedia: Nashville
Rotten Tomatoes: Nashville

= 3 stars

Starring Jean-Pierre Leaud, Claude Jade, Marie-France Pisier
Directed by Francois Truffaut

Synopsis

Separated from his wife Christine (Claude Jade) and seeing someone new, Antoine (Jean-Pierre Leaud) reconnects with his ex-girlfriend, Colette (Marie-France Pisier).

The Good

• Many scenes from previous films in the cycle appear as flashbacks during interesting moments — as Colette reads Antoine’s memoirs, Antoine and Christine recall their first meeting while pondering divorce. The characters’ recollections may be Truffaut’s own exploration of his favorite moments.
• Tries to conclude character arcs that span four films and thirty years. But besides Jean-Pierre Leaud’s evolution and Claude Jade’s third appearance, we have the return of Colette (Marie-France Pisier) (Antoine And Colette) who has changed from the selfish, aloof girl to a confident, independent woman, who eventually guides Antoine toward a hopeful future.

The Bad

• Truffaut’s direction feels a bit off: has lost some of that early visual inventiveness, and has become oddly reliant on close ups.
• Colette’s corny romance with a bookseller.
• The reliance on scenes from earlier films sometimes doesn’t work; many had much more power in their original context. I dread someone watching these movies in the incorrect order. It’s also notable that none of the previous installments used flashbacks to such excess.
• The ending is oddly “up” based on the endings of all the films previous, and sadly, poor Christine’s situation feels the most unresolved.

Conclusion

The impressive Antoine Doniel cycle of five films (The 400 Blows, Antoine Et Colette, Stolen Kisses, Bed And Board, Love On The Run) spanning thirty years concludes on a satisfying note, but this is the first that cannot stand alone — therefore rendering me entirely uninterested in another. Thank the cinema gods a sequel will never happen.

IMDB: Love On The Run
Wikipedia: Love On The Run
Rotten Tomatoes: Love On The Run