Stefan's Reviews

TC Tribute #11: Rain Man (1989)

2011-10-17T22:11:00.001-05:00

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

Rating: *** (out of ****)

**Some spoilers herein.**

Is there a more confounding filmmaking career than that of Barry Levinson? He's long been thought of as a director of comedies, and yet, he didn't direct a 'true' comedic effort until 1994's Jimmy Hollywood (as if to prove that he hadn't 'sold out' he released the disturbing and perverse hard-R sexual thriller Disclosure in the same year). A comedy director Levinson is not and never will be, instead here are some other, more accurate ways to describe him: wildly uneven in the quality of scripts he picks to direct, outspoken about the recent disintegration of the Hollywood film industry, and an Academy Award darling (his movies, especially early in his career seemed to always get nominated for an Oscar or two, predominantly in the acting categories). Of course, he is also a talent, and one of the rare filmmakers working today that's still trying to recapture that old 1930s to 1950s Hollywood magic in every movie he makes. Rain Man is a perfect example of this.

And that is why its success, both critical and at the box office is so surprising. Rain Man is a small unconventional film with plenty of quirks that get in the way of the inspirational message it's aiming for. But Levinson is no Zemeckis and this is no Forrest Gump. His unsentimental approach is exemplified by Tom Cruise's Charlie Babbitt - a slick and greedy man who does business through empty promises and whose only goals are material in nature. If ever there was a character set up for redemption this one's it. Charlie's brother Raymond (Dustin Hoffman in an award-winning role) suffers from a type of autism that grants him photographic memory but prevents him from being able to form successful relationships with other people, unless those other people have the patience and understanding of a Buddhist. Oh and also he has been bestowed with his father's fortune which is worth millions of dollars. This is a problem for Charlie since he is only left with his dad's old car and a garden of rosebushes. So he sets out on a journey to get his hands on the money, one that inevitably puts him on an emotional collision course with his brother's condition and some long-forgotten brotherly love.

The interactions between Charlie and Raymond form the centerpiece of the film, as they are forced to go on a cross-country road trip after Raymond freaks-out at an airport in a now infamous scene which has the totally baseless reputation of being funny - it is in fact one of the most unfunny sequences of the whole movie. Levinson's handling of their relationship is unsurprisingly actor-dependent as the interactions between Hoffman and Cruise come off as naturalistic and unrehearsed. It's a consistently difficult relationship to swallow as is the whole film - one of the most difficult watches of Tom Cruise's career. Levinson's style insists that the rewards for watching this are minimal and that the characters don't find an easy way to repair their relationship, or Charlie's behavior. There is a sequence that takes place in Las Vegas that should represent a pleasant bonding episode until Charlie (and the audience) is suddenly reminded that he is using his brother for purely financial gain by his estranged girlfriend Susanna (Valeria Golino).

By this point Charlie should have redeemed himself in the eyes of the audience, but with Levinson it's never that easy. It is in fact fair to say that Charlie never quite redeems his behavior. Yes, by the end he realizes that family is more important than an inheritance or quick-and-dirty business deals, but that's all there is - a realization. There isn't a clear act of redemption, instead Levinson is comfortable with his movie simply saying "Look he's wrong!" This is what in the end, keeps us at a distance and never allows us to connect with the characters' plights.

Fortunately, Levinson's cruel and distancing naturalism is counter-balanced by the rest of the film crew. John Seale's cinematography is so beautiful it hurts and Hans Zimmer's score alleviates the quirks and goes for the heart strings. Long-time Levinson collaborator, editor Stu Linder does a great job of immersing us in the many settings the characters go through. If it makes the film longer than need be, it's a small price to pay for the enjoyment of the long shots of the numerous landscapes and authentic pieces of Americana shown on the screen. The actors themselves do a great job, with Hoffman delivering a performance that is so good it's hard to believe he was able to pull it off. Cruise is a good straight man, but maybe even better than that as he frequently tends to put the character's negative tendencies at the forefront, making him a good complement to Hoffman's innocent.

In the end, the amount of effort put into the movie is fairly sizable by everyone involved. Did it deserve as much praise and Oscar gold? Probably not. It is a movie that's difficult to enjoy and be entertained by. Still the things that work work quite well and it's hard to find a better performance than that of Hoffman's in his or Levinson's entire repertoires. If anything, Rain Man should be looked at as yet another of the filmmaker's curious efforts to supplant Hollywood's tendencies and as that it's a valiant effort.

Year 2005: Are We There Yet? D

2011-10-03T21:56:00.001-05:00

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

The most interesting thing about director Brian Levant's film Are We There Yet? are the names of the three top-billed actors: Ice Cube, Nia Long, and Jay Mohr. Yes, it's absolutely disheartening to admit it, but seeing the structural similarity of the three stars' names during the end credits was the sole aspect of the film that stuck with me. I'd like to think that Levant, a family film veteran, made this "red herring" casting choice on purpose, if only to explain why Jay Mohr is even in this film, other than to act as a plot-turning device in a random moment in the third act of the story. Mohr's is a classic example of the undeveloped character with a role that holds less weight than that of a deer Cube nearly runs over later in the film. But character development may be the least of the film's problems. Levant, working off the screenplay credited to a total of 4! screenwriters, has created an uncharacteristically mean-spirited mash-up of physical comedy and familial drama (or at least an attempt at familial drama).

The film tells the story of Nick (Cube) - a small business owner/single bachelor whose "playboy" outlook on women quickly changes after he meets beautiful single mother Suzanne (Long). A man who used to laugh-off the possibility of a serious relationship, Nick is suddenly ready to do anything to win Suzanne's heart, even risking getting stuck in the dreaded "friend-zone." When she asks him to travel with her two young, boyfriend-pranking kids Lindsey (Aleisha Allen) and Kevin (Philip Bolden) from Portland, OR to Vancouver, his devotion is put to the absolute limits. The film makes the kids as unlikable as possible, but it absolves their behavior with the fact that they miss their uncaring, nowhere-to-be-found father. While the message here is potentially positive - that single parent family children secretly hope that the parents will get back together, the portrayal is almost offensive. The kids are blind to reality, making dangerously stupid decisions (like deciding to get on a cargo train in one of the film's least believable sequences, which is saying a lot), and ignoring or punishing every effort Nick makes to win them over. In a way, Levant forces his audience to blame the kids, but in the last act decides to turn it around and almost begs us for our sympathy. Too little, too late.

The story isn't helped by the actors much. Cube is awkward in a family-friendly comedy, especially one that calls less on his acting talent, then on his ability to sell a scene like the one in which he boxes with the aforementioned deer. Physical comedy is not his strong suit, and his presence is better felt in the still moments of the film. Believe it or not, Ice Cube is more of a "face" actor than a "body" one. The two child actors are forced into playing terrible people, and I guess the fact that I hated them by the film's 30-minute mark means that their performances were effective for what they were, clumsy line delivery and all. Long and Mohr don't have anywhere near enough screen time to leave an impression. In fact, Nick's bobble head doll of Satchel Paige has more screen time then they do. Voiced by Tracy Morgan during hallucinatory scenes in Nick's head, this might be the most disrespectful (and not to mention annoying) portrayal of someone who deserved respect in real life. Instead of using the bobble head as a voice of wisdom, Levant would rather it be a sex and alcohol-obsessed woman-hater. I mean seriously, what did Satchel Paige ever do to Levant?

I think Are We There Yet? should go down in history as one of the least enjoyable comedies of the last decade. It portrays young kids (and legendary athletes) in a needlessly and overtly negative light, which is unforgivable given their familial circumstances. There isn't a single laugh in site, just an endless exploitation of our feelings.

TC Tribute #10: Cocktail (1988)

2011-09-30T19:19:00.002-05:00

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

RATING: *** (out of ****)

Few directors can measure up to Roger Donaldson when it comes to infusing a film with the culture of its physical setting. Case in point, his 1988 film Cocktail begins with the ambitious ex-army man Brian Flanagan (Tom Cruise) saying good-bye to his buddies and boarding a bus for New York City. In an intro credit sequence set to a popular tune, Donaldson's shot of the twin towers is as iconic as the dog walker seen outside the bus window. Donaldson is extremely adept at capturing what New York is all about and getting the audience comfortable with this big new place our protagonist is thrust into. Flanagan is of the ambitious sort, and the film successfully explores the positives and negatives of such earnestness. On the one hand, he is forward-thinking, bound to be successful, and has a pleasantly naive outlook on life. On the other, he is unable to connect with people on a personal level, frequently treating those who love him apathetically at best. It becomes increasingly difficult to root for Flanagan as the film goes on, and Donaldson successfully adds complexities to the character that are unexpected in fare as light as this. For it is light. Cocktail is one of Cruise's least appreciated films, partly due to its frequently sexist overtones, but mostly due to the predictable last act which hinges on an unbelievable change of heart by Cruise's love interest Jordan (played by Elisabeth Shue).

But for all the structural short-comings of the screenplay, the film is still tons of fun with Cruise turning in an all too rare comedic performance, Bryan Brown in an all too rare major role, and Elisabeth Shue as likable as ever as the main love interest. The actors successfully create multidimensional characters in surprisingly top notch performances. There is a scene in which the strikingly beautiful Shue sees Cruise with another woman, and her reaction is a tasteful, extremely sad moment that exemplifies the hurt ambition can bring on those individuals closest to it's epicenter. Brown is also more than just a womanizing bartender, becoming a Shakespearean tragic by the third act which finishes off his remarkably complex arc. Finally, Cruise is in control of the movie. He charms and revolts in equal measures, while also contributing to most of the humor of the story.

Technically, the film benefits from Donaldson's keen cultural eye, and cinematographer Dean Semler's indulgent, but pleasant landscape framing. The soundtrack is full of classics from the 70's and 80's and nodding one's head to the familiar melodies is surely what the filmmakers intended. Finally there is the editing by Neil Travis. Never my favorite editor, Travis doesn't help the screenplay's lapses into awkwardness, frequently emphasizing scenes that shouldn't be and picking close-up shots when a wide frame would have better suited an exchange or action. But overall, non-nitpickers should ignore the bashing the film has endured over the last 20 or so years and just have fun. It's a roller coaster ride that may not take all its turns smoothly, but stops in just the right moment at the end. Recommended.

Year 2005: Alone in the Dark F

2011-09-12T21:35:00.003-05:00

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

So what makes a film bad? People who attempt to discredit the film criticism profession (such as it is), vocally express their doubt that any film can ever be determined as being objectively bad. They claim that art is relative, and that no individual or even collective can claim that any of it is irrefutably, 100% worthless. The rottentomatoes.com page for the much-maligned Uwe Boll film Alone in the Dark pretty much proves them right - currently the film holds a rotten 1% rating, with only 1 out of 116 total critics claiming that it's worth spending the time and/or money it would presumably take to see it. But even more than that, all the negative ratings vary from one to the next. Each critic holds his or her own personal reason for disliking Alone in the Dark, with very few claiming that absolutely all of the aspects of the film as seen, remain rotten to the core. The argument is that even if not one print or online critic felt brave enough to give this or any other maligned film a fresh rating, we still wouldn't have the ability to objectively point out its failures. Oh, and I haven't even gotten to the audience rating yet - currently at 21%, because the can of worms that opens up will take a lot more than a single paragraph to sort out.

My rating for Boll's film is an F - the lowest rating in my repertoire. If I had to describe it in one sentence it would be - an absolutely pointless waste of celluloid adding nothing, safe a big black blemish, on the cinematic landscape. But I still think it's better than Boll's previous outing House of the Dead. In a way, film ratings and sites like Rotten Tomatoes, while fun to peruse, should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm sure there are many who own Alone in the Dark and enjoy watching it repeatedly, embracing Boll's throwback-European framing of the scenes and quick-cut editing, among other things. Still, I'm not sure that fact threatens film criticism in any way. Long seen as a type of censorship by its most ardent opposition (Boll being at the forefront lately), film criticism I would argue is needed, to first and foremost enrich society's cinematic dialogue. Too often we label a film as either good or bad without asking ourselves about the reasons behind it. We ignore it's artistic merits, and even the devices the filmmaker may use to entertain us, preventing us from enjoying cinema as it is meant to be enjoyed - as art - each film with it's own unique inadequacies and benefits.

My unique perspective on Alone in the Dark is fueled by the fact that it may be one of the biggest missed opportunities of the last decade. Based on an early 90's PC game that dealt with main character Edward Carnby (played by Christian Slater in the film) attempting to solve a mystery involving a suicide in a haunted house. While navigating the maze-like corridors of the house, Carnby realizes that what first appeared to be a suicide, may not be one at all. Yeah... that's not what Boll's movie is about. The adaptation penned by no less than three screenwriters, centers on a city (that is never named) being invaded by the demon-like creatures in the game. Carnby and his girlfriend, anthropologist Aline Cedrac (Tara Reid in one of the few major film roles she's had recently) attempt to solve the mystery of this potentially apocalyptic scenario while dodging random attacks by the creatures.

Boll fails to deliver on this simple plot for two reasons - the minuscule budget he was given, and the simple fact that his talent is far outweighed by his lack of creativity. This combination makes for a fairly befuddling movie-going experience. The plot is simply not a $20 million plot. In fact, if the screenwriters had stuck to the video game's setting more closely, $20 million might have been more than enough. Unfortunately for Boll, his lack of imagination disallows him to shoot the whole film in a simple house, instead choosing to go for the 'bigger is better' approach. The film's characters face off with the creatures in museums, on boats, dark forests and mines. Each creature battle is more confusing than the next, but Boll never fails to implement gory Final Destination-esque deaths to the proceedings (another element missing from the game, included here simply because Boll wants to add the purported coolness factor). But Boll isn't even successful at being a naive crowd-pleaser. At least James Wan's similar efforts to please span from original ideas. Here, the only idea close to being original is casting Tara Reid as one of the most intelligent anthropologists in the world. Who would ever think of doing that?

Of course Boll has frequently singled-out two specific scenes as being "unlike anything we've seen before." The first one is an attempt to make one of the shootouts (that takes place in a warehouse) stylish and video game-like by setting it to fast-paced almost grunge-like dance music, and editing it to match the tempo. The second is a sex scene between Slater and Reid set to Youssou N'Dour's "7 Seconds" - a song that preaches non-violence in an overwhelmingly violent world. It's an ironic inclusion, given the gratuitous violence found throughout the production. It goes without saying that neither scene has been matched on the embarrassment scale in the intervening six years by any major production (though Zack Snyder has made an effort).

Strangely, the actors are not wholly to blame here. Slater's performance fits the film's B-movie aspirations like a glove, while Reid provides some much-needed eye candy and her character's intelligence makes her more than just the token helpless hottie we are used to seeing in horror films. Stephen Dorff is in a role he could do in his sleep, as Cmdr. Burke - Carnby's old nemesis who turns heroic. Finally, B-Movie veteran Matthew Walker shines as the villain, infusing his stock role with emotional complexity that goes beyond the script. But Boll, either under-uses or squanders the performances, never giving the characters proper back-stories or arcs, aside from Carnby and his doesn't make a whole lot of sense anyway.

The film's production values are predictably pedestrian. It's not just the low budget that hurts the film, it's Boll's incompetent handling of it. A filmmaker like Rob Zombie or even Alexandre Aja have shown an ability to do wonders with lower budgets and even less plot. But Boll and his usual collaborator, cinematographer Mathias Neumann can't come up with a single memorable shot. The instantly forgettable cliche classics include the camera entering the barrel of a gun to show the bullet slowly settling into the firing position, the aftermath of a massacre shot with red paint strewn about on white walls, and the one where a random bad guy gets shot in the chest, but is so hard to kill that after the next edit the blood on his shirt has all but disappeared. Actually, for that last one they were just too lazy to reapply the aforementioned red paint to the new shirt between takes.

And that's the type of half-assed filmmaking that I cannot find it in my heart to endorse. Alone in the Dark is filled with continuity issues, inconsequential characters and lines of dialogue, and not a single shot that comes even close to being atmospheric. This is a poor man's horror film, and unfortunately for us, that poor man is Uwe Boll.

Year 2005: Aeon Flux C-

2011-09-02T23:58:00.000-05:00

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

There is an almost peculiar bias favoing sci-fi tragedies in cinema that goes all the way back to Fritz Lang's 1927 genre-defining Metropolis with which Aeon Flux shares quite a few common thematic elements. While an almost cynical view of technological advancement and its effects on the future was a fairly original cinematic (if not literary) concept during Lang's heyday, nearly 80 years later, that feeling of ingenuity has been lost to the many reincarnations of those same ideas in countless sci-fi films. But why this constant fear of what's ahead? In Lang's masterpiece the answer is clear - as the industrial machine advances in size and power, it creates an insurmountable chasm between the social classes - the wealthy live a Utopian lifestyle provided to them by the industrial machine, while the poor are hidden away, damned to labor forever for the sake of keeping it running. What's most compelling about Lang's film is that this tragic division has seemingly transpired as a matter of course. There is no mention of an apocalyptic event leading the few survivors to create a new society, no mention of the robots turning against humanity, or of world wars killing-off the majority of people on Earth. No, for Lang the titular metropolis is a natural result of the continuous industrial advancement that has left people (even back in the 20s) blind to the alarmingly quick pace it can lead to immorality.

The answer offered up by the barrage of films following Lang's rarely echo the subtlety of his message. In the beginning of director Karyn Kusama's Aeon Flux, the film's namesake (played by Charlize Theron) sets up the story through a predictable voice-over that includes such now-cliche staples as disease epidemics, few survivors, power-hungry tyrants and Utopian societies. The narrative is an incredibly tragic 'history' of this planet, but it does provide an answer to our question. Unlike Lang, modern-day sci-fi filmmakers have become positively reliant on the 'cataclysm' plot device. For them, the only way to add weight to the proceedings is to begin with the apocalypse, so that the resulting Lang-esque society can be attributed not on humanity's own failures, but on random chance, making humans bystanders of their own destruction. It's an easy device to use, almost a cop out, but it also reflects modern day society's failings - fear of the apocalypse which is always thought to be just around the bend, and enormously high self-esteem which leaves humans blameless for all of their prospective troubles.

For Kusama and writers Phil Hay and Matt Manfredi (who previously wrote the screenplay for The Tuxedo), an uninvolved society is part of the issue. Throughout Aeon Flux, all humans, except for the main characters, are seen as walking in a daze, in an almost zombie-like state. If this is done on purpose (and I assume so), it's one of the most compelling aspects of the film as it successfully portrays the uninvolved as the enablers of tyranny. At one point in the film, Theron's character proclaims "I want to feel human again!" As one of the rebel "Monicans" - trained fighters that work to bring down the dictator Trevor Goodchild (Marton Csokas) - that statement is an appropriate one, and it's a good call-to-arms for people living under dictatorships - it's simply not human. The statement by Aeon's doomed sister Una who says that she "is trying to make something good out of" the problems she sees around her every day, is punctuated by a father who is asking if people have seen his daughter who's mysteriously disappeared. Aeon accurately describes Una's attitude as voluntary ignorance in a dialogue scene that may be the film's finest moment.

Unfortunately this is as cerebral as the film gets, as Kusama tends to favor empty, but over-stylized action sequences, instead of much needed character moments. While there is no doubting the Monicans' physical abilities, the action scenes fail to excite, as Kusama squanders cinematographer Stuart Dryburgh's wide-angle action with edits that cut away right when the fight gets interesting. The biggest disappointment is the hand-to-hand combat - it's strange to see the director of Girlfight utilize this potentially exciting device so sparingly. Instead, after a couple of jumps and knife swings Aeon's targets are eliminated as quickly as they appeared. Using the phrase 'split-second' to describe some of Aeon's kills is not an exaggeration by any means.

So what does that leave us? The plot twists are compelling, but as Aeon figures out each one of them, Theron finds it inexplicably appropriate to overact and mishandle the scenes - an unfortunate development for an actress just coming off a deserved Oscar win. Csokas puts on a better, more theatrical performance. His is a tragic character, forever doomed in the cycle of life, who holds all the secrets of this film. The actor seems unburdened by the expectations put onto him by the script, and comes out largely unscathed with a good performance. The rest of the cast is filled with talent - from Johnny Lee Miller as Trevor's unsettled brother Oren to Pete Postlethwaite as a doctor relegated to forever assisting Trevor Godchild with his scientific experiments. The trouble is that none of them stand out and one is able to remember them by appearance only, not by memorable lines or deliveries. If the script is structurally strong, it still relegates the supporting talent to bit roles that lack character development or motivation.

Aeon Flux is meant to be a depressing film. Death is seen as a welcome escape from an inhuman state of existence. The last act does not make the audience feel any better. But the film's compellingly depressing story is unfortunately coupled with bad execution, misused talent, and action scenes that need to be endured, instead of enjoyed. Sure Lang aimed high back in 1927, but it was his meticulousness that prevented him from crumbling beneath his own ambitions. Kusama is not so careful. From the first frame to last her film is a misguided, confusing homage to Lang that turns out to be way too similar to the barrage of films that have followed his masterpiece ever since. Read: it's average.

Year 2005: The Adventures of Shark-Boy and Lava-Girl in 3D D-

2011-08-16T21:32:00.008-05:00

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

Maybe my expectations for so-called 'family' films are too high. Or maybe the reason The Adventures of Shark-Boy and Lava-Girl in 3D tested my bad filmmaking tolerance and pushed me a few steps closer to lunacy is that director Robert Rodriguez completely squanders an opportunity to make a deep (if weird), even soulful kids' movie by infusing it with needless over-the-top special effects at every turn. Rodriguez, known as a rebel director in Hollywood who likes to ride on his reputation garnered from past successes like Desperado and Spy Kids, claims that each one of his movies changes the preconceived notions of cinema as an art form by introducing new ideas and technologies into the artistic fold. While that is undoubtedly true for his other 2005 effort Sin City, this film ditches the artistry so essential to cinema, instead emphasizing the 'cool' new 3D technology and green-screen effects. In short, the things that truly make us care for the characters - a coherent and emotional story, crisp dialogue, genuine acting and a positive message - are all ditched or cut back in favor of empty action, devoid of anything that should keep us from walking-out, hitting the 'stop' button, or turning the channel.

Rodriguez likes to sell this film by indulging that his then 10-year old son Racer Rodriguez actually came up with its premise, and (Robert) Rodriguez even gave him an official 'Story By" credit. But after having seen the final product, this fact makes the experience of watching it an even sadder one, because the base story has the potential to be a thoughtful rumination on the influence our dreams have on the real world. The resulting screenplay co-written by Robert Rodriguez and his brother Marcel is anything but thoughtful. It loses sight of the real world and focuses solely on the dream portion wherein the young dreamer Max (Cayden Boyd) meets Shark-Boy (Taylor Lautner) and Lava-Girl (Taylor Dooley), two superheroes of the dream world who do battle against an evil mastermind Mr. Electric (George Lopez). There isn't much plot beyond this, and talented supporting actors like David Arquette and Kristin Davis are squandered in bit parts that add little substance to the proceedings.

Unfortunately Rodriguez, who is traditionally the ring-leader of his sideshow projects choosing to score, edit and shoot his films in addition to direct, elects to go the George Lucas route of hoping that all the visual hoop-la makes up for the single-take line delivery of the main players. For it is without a doubt that Lautner and Dooley have little to no talent, and it is also without a doubt that Boyd has taken the 'sleeping' part of the role a little too literally. Instead of Rodriguez treating the film as a sort of acting school for these up-and-comers he decides to point and shoot while they do their line readings in an amateurish, over-the-top and, in Boyd's case, overly reluctant fashion. Sometimes, though rarely, the written word can make up for bad delivery, but alas this isn't the case here. Even a veteran actor like Lopez delivers his lines in a dumbfounded, can't-believe-this-is-actually-a-real-movie-that-will-be-shown-to-real-people way that represents the closest the movie came to putting a smirk on my face. But mostly I just sank lower in my chair with each passing minute, embarrassed for all the actors involved.

It shouldn't come as any surprise that Rodriguez's brand of frugal visual effects also fail to impress on even a 'serviceable' level, which is inexcusable, considering how prevalent they are. The biggest disappointment is the production design of the dream world that Shark-Boy, Lava-Girl and all of their kooky companions (and enemies) call home, since it is mostly green screen-aided landscapes with few random set-dress ups and weird costumes. This and the poor 3D effects (which are way too few and far between to be worth mentioning) signal a lack of budgetary planning on (also producer) Rodriguez's part. Truthfully, I wouldn't be picking on the special effects if Rodriguez acted as if they weren't the only thing that mattered to him and supposedly the success of his movie.

Around the time it came out, every promotional interview Rodriguez sat in included an assortment of the following words or phrases: 'pioneering,' 'state-of-the-art,' 'never been done before' and my personal favorite "standard-setting." Please. One has to try a little harder than Rodriguez did to create a game-changer, as demonstrated in the same year by filmmakers like Peter Jackson (King Kong), Joe Wright (Pride and Prejudice) and *surprise* Robert Rodriguez with Sin City. For it is Sin City's existence that makes this film's failure even more painful. It's as if the two movies combined reveal a director being at the top of his game for one and totally slumming it for the other. I'll let you decide which one is which.

Best of '05: An Unfinished Life B+ (8/10)

2011-05-31T23:03:00.004-05:00

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

Lasse Hallstrom's tumultuous follow-up to the equally-abrasive The Shipping News is at first glance a quiet story about the loss of a son and father that quickly turns into a brazen attack on familial abuse. Hallstrom's films are usually characterized by the tension brimming just under the skin of the characters - ones who (with the exception of the villains) seemingly engage in an endless battle to suppress a violent release. In An Unfinished Life, the clear villain is a physically abusive boyfriend (played snarkily by Damian Lewis) whose behavior eventually chases away his girlfriend Jean (Jennifer Lopez) and her daughter Griff (Becca Gardner) to Jean's father-in-law's Wyoming farm, which due to a tragedy that happened a long time ago, is the last place she wants to be.

Her father-in-law Einar is played by Robert Redford in a touching performance that combines the toughness of an Old West rancher with the sentimentality of a man nearing the end of his rope. It's a career-defining performance, and a timely reminder of the talented, larger-than-life movie star Redford used to be more than two decades ago. Hallstrom successfully balances the brooding of Einar with Morgan Freeman's live-in ranch hand Mitch. Haunted by a bear attack that's left his face scarred for life, Mitch refuses to dwell in the past and his relative jubilancy helps Einar get through the day. Never a director who allows to be bullied by big-name stars, Hallstrom manages to extract a rare understated performance from Freeman, and many have labeled it as their favorite in the film.

As Jean and Griff's lives collide with those of Einar and Mitch the emotional consequences are both painful and cathartic. The characters transitions from trying to simply 'get along' to purifying their souls of past demons. The film certainly is spiritually ambitious (labeled as 'hokum' by the boorish Stephanie Zacharek at Salon.com) and rewarding, invoking the two concepts most paramount in the human spirit - forgiveness and fulfillment, the latter of which goes back to the film's title.

The film may not be labeled as a "brave choice" for anyone involved, as the basic thematic elements have been utilized in many cinematic incarnations during the last two decades. But it is once again Hallstrom who allows the film and its characters to breathe within the premise's seemingly tight constraints. Part of the way he does this is by letting the supporting characters share the spotlight. Inspired turns by Lewis, Josh Lucas and Camryn Manheim make the small town setting feel fuller and more complete. Hallstrom also adds color to the proceedings by infusing a few Western staples in what is mostly a dramatically inclined film. He portrays two rowdy bar patrons perfectly, complete with uncalled-for sexism and drunkenness. Also, the abusive ex-boyfriend is portrayed as a dangerous outlaw riding into town. "It's pretty 'country' out here." he jokingly remarks in one of the film's most memorable lines, perfectly encapsulating the feel that Hallstrom is going for.

Aiding him in getting that feel right are not only screenwriters Mark and Virginia Spragg, but also frequent collaborator cinematographer Oliver Stapleton. Stapleton's patient eye and lingering camera mixes well with editor Andrew Mondshein's love of longer takes and smoother flow. But the film isn't just well-framed and perfectly paced - it sounds great as well. Underrated composer Deborah Lurie's score sounds predictable at first glance, but like the film as a whole, is a lot more complex underneath the surface, with theme-based memorable movements thrown out in favor of stream-of-consciousness reactionary harmonies.

Overall, I can't help but to recommend this film. Sure, there are some out-and-out cliches in the first act, but as the second act hits its stride we realize that the film is going to previously unforeseen places, and audiences will be surprised by the trajectory the individual stories take. By the film's culmination, we are emotionally taken to a place that is utterly changed from the one at the very beginning, which is what Hallstrom had been aiming to do from the very beginning.

Best of '05: The Amityville Horror (2005) B (7/10)

2011-05-30T20:32:00.000-05:00

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

It is difficult to critique a remake on its own merits, but it is absolutely vital that one tries to do so in order to remain objective and appropriately insightful about the film at hand instead of its previous translations to the big screen. I therefore will not discuss, even in the most minute way, the original 1979 version of this film, and will solely focus on director Andrew Douglas's (the compelling documentary Searching for the Wrong-Eyed Jesus) 2005 effort The Amityville Horror. Part of the reason I wanted to make this clear in the beginning of the review is because I want to alert the reader to a recent trend in criticism which has, in my opinion, discredited many critics' reviews of certain films. This trend can be summed up as "reviewing a remake, not a movie" and so many respected names have jumped thoughtlessly on its bandwagon that it almost amazes me that there hasn't been an outcry by filmgoers against the negatively biased reviews that it's resulted into. The film fans are more often than not hurt, rather than helped, by movie critics and in this particular instance, many of them missed a good horror film just because their favorite film critic condemned it automatically as a remake without giving his or her justifying opinion.

Questions I am usually asked when I express this currently unpopular view are: "Do the filmmakers, and the film, even deserve our fullest consideration of what appears on screen?" or "Why should we embrace their work as art when presumably it was only made with financial, not creative gain in mind?" These questions are invalid but I will provide fair answers. The truth is that the filmmakers and their work do deserve our fullest consideration, since their work is in fact art, but art based on preexisting material, in the same way that the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings films are, among many others. Remakes are partially made with financial gain in mind, but the possibility of financial gain has only been realized by the producers due to their sensitivity to consumer market trends. In other words, remakes only exist because their producers (rightfully so) sensed a desire for them by the general audience - the people whom hold the careers of movie critics in balance. It is a reality that any film critic would be foolish to ignore or overstep on the false premise that these films are made by money, not creative minds putting their best foot forward to amaze, scare, humor, or simply entertain fans of film. The filmmakers who made The Amityville Horror had this in mind, not just the bottom line.

This film is based on the alleged true story of the Lutz family which moves into a house with a dark past - summarized in the beginning of the film through the use of newspaper headlines inter-spliced with depictions of the killings of the people who had previously lived there - the Defeo family - by none other than their son/brother Ronald (Brendan Donaldson). Ronald had apparently done this because he lived in the basement. Soon after moving in, the Lutz's seem to be inflicted by the same curse as the Defeos. The father in this family of five, George (Ryan Reynolds) decides it would be much easier if he settles into the basement temporarily where it's quieter and he can get his work done without being bothered by their three kids (played by future teen stars Jimmy Bennett, Chloe Moretz, and Jesse James). Terror soon ensues.

Director Douglas and screenwriter Scott Kosar create an intense atmosphere from the very start. And while the material here doesn't really allow them to have much breathing room (most of the film takes place in the house), they are still able to accomplish two things that differentiate this film from a lot of horror films that come out - first, they scatter scary moments throughout the running length of the film, while also building tension up toward the climax of the film, and second - they explore a psychological dichotomy of evil - the evil of the house and the evil of the father. Most would say that the response to that inquiry is pretty clear - the terror in this film is strictly location-based (or history-based since the house's dark past is really the instrument that drives the third act forward). But I think there is a deeper, more complex answer that Douglas shows in the second act center-piece scene where the Lutz' young daughter Chelsea (Moretz) climbs on top of the house's steep roof, claiming she is being guided by an imaginary friend. The resulting near-tragedy is blamed squarely on Chelsea by her dad, indicating his lack of acknowledgement and his dangerous denial of reality. In this way Douglas shows George's chosen ignorance as the enabler of terror.

But that isn't to say it's all smooth sailing as far as the script's thematic inclinations are concerned. Most if not all of the conflicting themes like the one mentioned above are dropped in favor of long-form tension-building horror-sequences, especially one involving Rachel Nichols as the babysitter-from-Hell Lisa and a scene involving Philip Baker Hall as the local priest trying to help the Lutz family. It is after all, appropriate for Douglas to favor horror over thematic substance in a scary movie, and it results in some of the best horror sequences since the 2004 remake of The Grudge. The scary climax of the film involving Kathy Lutz (Melissa George) uncovering the source of her husband's madness is one of the scariest, but also most technically-attuned sequences I've seen on film. Douglas's camera moves fluidly from one horrific scene to the next, becoming more and more frantic as it gets closer to its centerpiece. I won't spoil the scene by going into further detail, but I can assure any prospective viewers of its effectiveness and high production values.

It's too bad the same attention wasn't paid to the performances. Unfortunately, Ryan Reynolds turns in the weakest performance of the lot, and has the most screen time. The George character never comes off as menacing or scary, and the most Reynolds's performance can make us feel is mild discomfort. Melissa George is better as the wife and mother of the family, but is also instantly forgettable. At least her line delivery doesn't inspire howled laughter. The rest of the supporting cast, especially the young children Moretz and Jimmy Bennet as the daughter and son are top notch, but with little help from the script.

But the hit-and-miss acting can't take away from the film's effectiveness. Douglas has crafted a horror film that holds up after multiple viewings and remains faithful to the original story, while also inserting a fair amount of truly scary scenes that stay with you longer after the viewing. It's slower pace allows for character moments that are usually skipped over in today's James Wan-inspired horror film examples, but this also makes the scary sequences all the more hard-hitting. Recommended.

2011-01-02T20:20:00.000-06:00

As the year 2010 slowly and mercifully sputters to a close, I find it more and more difficult to look back on it in a positive light, at least from a cinematic perspective. While at first I felt this year ranked among the best in overall film quality (right after 2006 and 1999), a closer look at the cinematic landscape tells a fairly different story. One aspect worth pointing out is the precipitous fall in quality of the year's 'blockbusters' even compared to the sorrowful 2009. The few good ones (Harry Potter 7 Part 1, Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader, The Lovely Bones, Toy Story 3) were certainly outweighed by the many duds (The A-Team, Little Fockers, Twilight Saga: Eclipse, The Last Airbender, Robin Hood - just to name a few) that populated the mainstream movie market. In 2010 more than any other year, high anticipation was met with tremendous disappointment. Case in point: Iron Man 2. Sure Iron Man 2 is a good film, but I can name few people who thought it lived up to the expectations set forth by the first one. Want confirmation the sequel was a disappointment: series helmer Jon Faverau has turned down the chance to direct Iron Man 3 due to Disney and Marvel Studios getting directly involved with the creative aspects of the final product. This reveals something troubling about mainstream cinema - creative control has been turned over to executive producers, not the directors, producers, writers, editors, etc. who should have final cut. It is a part of the constant pursuit of profit studios partake in which, while extraordinarily multi-pronged, is also totally useless. Among the lawsuits, internet bandwidth reductions, creative control, incessant micro-management, and most troubling of all - simultaneous launches of new releases in theaters and on DVD and PPV (this is killing cinema), studios have forgotten what truly makes people want to go to the movies - good stories accompanied by high production values. Still think studios know what they're doing? Watch Clash of the Titans and then get back to me.

But in 2010, while blockbusters suffered, independent films prospered. From the fantasy behemoth Enter the Void to the laugh-fest Four Lions, indie filmmakers succeeded in offering audiences good films without tiring marketing campaigns and embarrassing 3D. The indie scene spanned many genres, but it was the documentary that for a second year in a row was the most consistent genre of them all. While no documentary made my Top 10 this year, three were extremely close, and many more are definitely worth seeing, namely: 9500 Liberty, Countdown to Zero, Inside Job, Restrepo, and many others. My Top 10 this year is populated by what most would consider non-mainstream films. But I strongly recommend that you the reader look out for them. One of the best movie-watching experiences a person could have is being pleasantly surprised by a film they've never even heard of. So next time you're looking for something to add to your Netflix Queue, skip over the obvious (but bad choices) like Repo Men or Step Up 3D and add Fish Tank. You certainly have nothing to lose.

Most Overrated Film: Easy A

Most Underrated Film: Remember Me

Most Boring Good Movie: Carlos

Most Exciting Bad Movie: District 13: Ultimatum

Most Beautiful Movie: The Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole

Ugliest Movie: Jackass 3D

Best Horror: Let Me In

Best Comedy: Four Lions

Best Animation: How to Train Your Dragon

The Average Movie: Grown Ups

Why shouldn't you see these films? They are a waste of time and celluloid, but most importantly they are a waste of your money. In today's tough economic times, it's important to not risk wasting precious dollars on films that don't deserve them. Trust me, I know the feeling (films are rated out of ****).

Dis-Honorable Mentions (in alphabetical order): The Back-Up Plan, Chance Pe Dance, Dead Awake, Just Wright, and Legion

10. The Bounty Hunter (*) - The lines in this 'romantic comedy' (labeling it that is a LIE!) are so excruciatingly painful, facepalm came dangerously close to becoming another one of my already-numerous annoying habits. I also thought of a game where you count all the moments you wish Gerard Butler would yell out "This is SPARTA!!!" instead of the line he was given... I stopped playing after 10.

9. Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief (*) - I've seen some bad fantasy in my day, but I can't remember the last time I saw one this lethargic. Here is an example: (spoilers, but come on) our hero's mother gets killed (or so he thinks) and his reaction, the one time the film has a chance to show some real raw emotion, is a blank stare and some apathetic sound that I couldn't really discern. You want a good emotional reaction? You should have seen me when the credits started rolling and I realized what I'd just seen. It was as if someone had stolen my money... Oh wait.

8. You Again (*) This movie again. I thought I was done with this movie after the first time I saw it. I can't even remember why I did. Maybe I felt a pang of nostalgia when I saw Patrick Duffy in the credits. All I know is that when I came out I tried blocking the whole experience out of my mind. Duffy wasn't even in it for more than 10 minutes I think. But yeah, see this if you want to listen to grown women who should know better pour their hearts out about how terrible their boyfriends are, and how dependent they are on their boyfriends, and how it will be the end of the world if their boyfriend broke-up with them. When did we go back to the '60s?

7. Vampires Suck (*) - Too easy? Maybe. But I felt like a complete moron for seeing it. Partly because it lowered my IQ by at least 20 points during its duration, and also because I knew that the people behind this movie are the same two conniving unintelligent imbeciles who have made my bottom 10 for I don't know how many years now with such classics like Date Movie and Meet the Spartans, and I still SAW it!! I'm an idiot.

6. Marmaduke (*) - The worst CGI of the year belongs to Marmaduke - a creepy pet movie masquerading as a family film to lure in the masses. It's not that the CGI is of bad quality, but mostly of bad taste. Reportedly, in the comic series this film is based on, the dog - Marmaduke - never spoke. Of course a normal dog that God-forbid, only barks, is unacceptable for filmmakers aiming for the absolute lowest common denominator. It's like they set out to make a bad movie. They exceeded that goal and made a terrible one.

5. Yogi Bear (*) - Like Marmaduke, only worse. To enjoy this film you have to be either high (I wasn't), a masochist (I wasn't until after I saw this movie), or a complete idiot (depends on who you ask). Or maybe you just enjoy listening to once-funny actors like Dan Aykroyd and Anna Faris commit career suicide. I actually think I fit into that last one.

4. The Human Centipede (First Sequence) (*) - Director/Writer Tom Six indicated this horror travesty is the first in a potential two-part series. This idea is more likely to be realized now that this atrocity has garnered an undeserving cult following, only because of it's name - which is certainly the best part. Six claims that the film(s) is meant to lash out at certain pop culture staples like gore-horror and pornography. In fact, the only statement the film makes is against good cinema. In the third act of the film, when evil Dr. Heiter (an absolutely disgusting Dieter Laser) has created his art piece made of human bodies, he yells out "Feed her!" Six wants the words to take on a double meaning. If his script lived up to his vague ambitions, the film may have succeeded on at least one front, but as it is, The Human Centipede is nothing more than just another dumb horror film, with nothing but a cheap parlor trick setting it apart from all the others.

3. Sex and the City 2 (*) - If all the sexism, racism, and homophobia don't turn you off this film, it's highly probable that the immoral, ill-timed materialism certainly will. The problems the main characters in this inevitable, but needless sequel, run into range from not having enough different pairs of shoes, to not being able to go out to a certain club for one night, even though they go there every single day! It's no surprise then, that the ending is the worst movie ending of the year, complete with this valuable life lesson - if your partner cheats on you, just buy them a big diamond ring and everything will be better.

2. Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore (1/2) - If ever there was a movie made for walk-outs, this is it. I only speak from personal experience here, but about 50% of the people at my screening were gone by the 1-hour mark. Good for them too, because the last 20 minutes of this disgraceful film are tomato-throwing worthy. Seeing this film has even made me question why I had an affection for the original in the first place, making this one of those rare sequels that damages the reputations of any movies/filmmakers/actors associated with it.

1. Chain Letter (1/2) - The worst movie of the year. To describe it in any other way would be a waste of my time. I've wasted enough time on this lazy excuse for a horror film.

These are the 10 best films of the past year. 2010 may not have been as strong as I anticipated at the end of 2009, but the following list was still difficult to narrow down. I hope you enjoy reading it - I've tried to pare down my thoughts to just a few sentences - an improvement over previous years' borderline long-form essays, in my view. As usual, the films are rated out of **** .

Honorable Mentions (in alphabetical order): The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Last Train Home, Oceans, The Red Riding Trilogy and Sweetgrass

10. True Grit (***1/2) - Yes this film is a joke, but after two good-not-great films in a role, it was about time the Coen Bros. made a film actually worth all the praise it's getting. But if one thinks a tongue-in-cheek remake of what is arguably the lodestar of the American Western genre is nothing less than a meta-example of the Coens' proverbial wit, the joke is on them. The Coens haven't been this brave in a long time, and True Grit is their most accessible, but still clever film in more than a decade.

9. How To Train Your Dragon (***1/2) - As I get older, I find that experiencing the joy of feeling like a kid is progressively becoming harder and harder. It's films like How To Train Your Dragon that help me get that feeling back. The difference here is that the feeling stuck with me days after the end credits rolled, and even after I had seen other movies. Rarely does something animated affect adults as strongly as this film is capable of doing, and rarely do cinematic beauty and great storytelling come together so flawlessly.

8. The King's Speech (***1/2) - An overwhelming, and frightfully dramatic film, The King's Speech tells the story of King George the VI whose speech impediment prevented him from being able to fittingly fill the responsibility passed down to him. While at times hard to watch, the film's cathartic and bittersweet finale is worthy of what precedes it. Sometimes the ending makes the movie, in this case, the movie makes the movie.

7. Shutter Island (***1/2) - Flawed to a fault, this film still represents Martin Scorsese's best work since The Aviator. It pins you to your seat from first frame to last, but it also remain a highly potent art piece - its sudden splashes of color, shockingly depressing imagery, and psychological tricks making it a prime example of a film that works within multiple genres. Here's hoping Scorsese continues to take risks with screenplays he picks in the future.

6. Aftershock (***1/2) - The saddest movie of the year, Aftershock is a fictional account of a family trying to survive a major Chinese earthquake (that actually happened) in 1976. While Chinese cinema has long been regarded as exoteric compared to industries in countries like Japan and India, films like this one make a fairly strong argument that Oscar should finally recognize the Chinese. Director Xiagang Feng's film makes the four central character's individual and collective plights so real that one begins to feel as though a part of the family the film centers on. Feng is not afraid to have the camera linger during moments of grief, accentuating the honest human reactions to natural disasters and death. But Feng also takes the high road and doesn't wallow in the helplessness of humanity, instead showing its unwavering strength. Please search out this little-seen film.

5. 127 Hours (***1/2) - Through most of this film's running time there is only one actor - James Franco, whose hand is trapped between a rock and a cave wall, in a narrow canyon. Based on a true story, the film is a great example of how a minimalist film can truly have an epic feel. We can thank Academy Award winning director Danny Boyle for that, as his decisions as to what is shown on screen and what isn't border on brilliant. Boyle rightfully focuses on the mental journey this person went through, and that makes this a can't miss drama, with enough thrill to make it hard to recommend to the faint of heart.

4. Black Swan (***1/2) - Darren Aronofsky's newest shocker is about as much fun as a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but if one stops questioning the film's apparent pseudo-reality, and focuses on the characters, the film's hard-earned value comes through. Aronofsky has never been a filmmaker intent on tricking his audience, and with Black Swan he has created another blessedly heavy-handed, overtly-melodramatic, scary, near-masterpiece. Some have called the horror elements (most of which are the scariest movie moments of the year) cheap and misused in a film about competitive ballet, but why anyone would be surprised that Aronofsky would include them, seriously needs to take a second hard look at his complete filmography, and realize that this is a natural step in this filmmaker's soon-to-be-skyrocketing career.

3. The White Ribbon (***1/2) - German auteur Michael Haneke's newest cynical film is not only worth seeing, it's worth seeing twice. Presented in black and white (but probably filmed in color) this outraged portrait of early Fascism practiced by pre-teens living in a small German town is an uncompromising critique of how quickly Europe forgets its ugly past. Haneke has never been a fan of his home continent (cinematically-speaking), but the strength of this film is a fatal jab at a culture that he sees as becoming more and more accepting of the old pre-Nazi ways.

2. The Social Network (***1/2) - What is behind the social networking phenomenon Facebook.com? Good old fashioned American Greed, says director David Fincher who is poised for another string of Academy Award nominations with his latest dialogue-heavy, drama-laden piece of art. It's that dialogue and these characters, that truly make this a film with an appeal as universal as that of the website at the center of its premise. I haven't yet had the chance to meet anyone who has disliked this film, but with Fincher at the helm, the crowd-pleasing wasn't a surprise.

1. The Secret in Their Eyes (****) - The very best film of the year hails from Argentina. Winner of the Best Foreign Language film, The Secret in Their Eyes is a crime drama worthy of Scorsese, and it even surpasses some of his efforts in quality, craftsmanship, and the crowd-pleasing ability so many of these crime films lack. Director Juan Jose Campanella does not bog down his film with needless plotting or many side characters, intelligently keeping the story centered on the people we care about. Hollywood should be taking notes - this is what cinema should be, and it was an easy decision for me to award this film four stars.

The Return of the King

2010-06-13T17:16:00.000-05:00

Hello loyal readers and newcomers! Over roughly the past 8 months (heck lets make it 18) this blog has been disappointingly dead. There have been a few sizable posts within that time frame, but overall I've been focusing on other things - namely school and work. Fortunately summer is upon us and I can now focus on this blog which is truly my passion. I love to write, especially about film, and this blog allows me to share that feeling with others. For me, there are few better sensations in this world than knowing someone is reading what you wrote (and enjoying it). Offering an opinion on films, current events, or whatever you want, and publishing it, lets the readers in on the type of person you really are. That is a risky proposition in today's technologically advanced, privacy deprived society, but it is also one I am willing, no wanting to take. I hope you have as much fun making the connection as I do.

Look forward for more "Stuff on My Mind" "Tom Cruise Tribute" and "Best of 2005" posts in the near future. Maybe in that order.

2010-01-30T10:39:00.000-06:00

Over the next few days I will post what I think are the Top 50 best films of the last decade. If I had to sum up the decade in one word it would be 'inconsistent,' but when the films were good they were some of the best of all time.

The list will be in ascending order (#50 - to #1) except for the ten honorable mentions which will be in alphabetical order. The six separate posts that make-up this countdown will be archived below for easy access in the future. Thank you so much for reading!

Honorable Mentions
#50 - #41
#40 - #31
#30 - #21
#20 - #11
#10 - #1

Stefan Vlahov

Top 50: 2000 - 2009 #10 - #1

2010-01-21T20:46:00.016-06:00

Special effects extravaganzas don't get much better than Peter Jackson's King Kong. A dramatic spectacle, the film is a perfect mix of action and passion, and of special effects and small personal scenes that greatly add to the emotional arcs of the human characters in the story. A film that hasn't been surpassed technologically ever since (yes, not even by Avatar), King Kong deserves to be celebrated for years to come.

Contrary to popular belief, Richard Kelly's Donnie Darko still holds up almost nine years after its original release. That Kelly's film is still able to have as strong an effect on its viewer, even if most of it doesn't make sense (at least at first) is some kind of triumph. The film, for all the grandstanding by the screenplay, can actually be called restrained due to the subtle performances by the cast which is excellent across the board, from Jake Gyllenhaal as the troubled teen Donnie, to the late Patrick Swayze as the hidden, but vicious pedophile Jim in his best performance of the last decade. Donnie Darko is a representation of all the angst, uncertainty and misplaced love that teenagers feel, and is the ultimate teen film.

Referring to Ang Lee's Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon as the film that introduced the world to the wire-fu style that it sparingly, but breathtakingly implements into its fairy tale story, would do it a disservice. Lee's accomplishments go beyond revolutionizing the martial arts genre, since he did so much for Asian dramatic cinema as well. Lee's subtly portrayed, but powerful characters stand out among the ground-breaking special effects and captivating vistas, as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon may be the most crowd-pleasing art film of the last decade.

Leave it to M. Night Shyamalan to create the defining cinematic moment of the last decade, which occurs when the blind Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard in an amazing performance) goes out into the modern world for the first time in her life and meets Kevin who seems like a nice person. When Ivy says "I did not expect that" I knew The Village is one of the bravest, most conflicting pieces of cinema I'd ever seen. Sure, it plays like a 'greatest hits' collection from all the pre-method filmmakers that ever lived, but Shyamalan not only strives for cinematic perfection (and achieves it), he also asks individuals to stop hiding from the world, and face its unfairness, its violence, and its carelessness so as to discover its moments of beauty, however small they may be, as they represent what truly matters.

Clint Eastwood's best film, Letters from Iwo Jima shows him exploring the battle of Iwo Jima as it was experienced by the Japanese. That the film would a.) be the most authentic and realistic portrayal of the Japanese side's experiences during the battle, and that b.) it would become the most effective tear-jerker this side of Titanic were things no one anticipated back in late 2006. But Letters from Iwo Jima achieves those things with ease, and it's impossible to imagine how any filmmaker, even Eastwood himself, would ever be able to replicate. I can't believe this isn't in my top 5.

Speaking of can't-be-replicated, Roman Polanski's drama The Pianist transcends from unnerving to unforgettable during its running time, and Polanski has us amazed at one moment, and bawling our eyes out in the next. Of course, Polanski is no stranger to playing with our emotions (in the best sense of the phrase), but The Pianist is probably his most sincere effort. Anchored by a performance by Adrien Brody that no descriptor can do justice, the film is the example of technical and acting ability combined to create a film that may have no parallel in the last decade, or for that matter, the last 20 years.

What can I do? I'm a romantic and I can't help but fall in love with Michel Gondry's Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. The film's convoluted and confusing plot has now become something close to legendary, but what I like the most is its surprising tenderness despite the lack of continuity. The film contains some of the most romantic moments in movie history, and some of the most heartbreaking. That the story as a whole comes together around these moments and becomes something one can appreciate from more than just a distance, automatically earns it the label of 'best romantic movie of the last decade'.

The most disturbing movie of the last decade was Darren Arronofsky's anti-drug monstrosity Requiem for a Dream. Based on Hubert Selby Jr.'s equally disturbing novel, Arronofsky slaps all the films that embraced drug culture in the face, and rightfully so. But the film is not valuable only because of its message, it also represents what the medium is best at - the way it can physically and mentally affect its viewer when done right. No part of the awful story the film tells is anything less than scary, and one is unable to recommend this film as a piece of entertainment. In fact I feel terrible about recommending this film to anyone who may not be prepared to view it, but I can guarantee that viewing it may be the most unnerving, beautiful, awful, transcendent, resourceful, indescribable film experience of one's life.

Science fiction is hard to do right... unless you are Steven Spielberg working off of an idea first developed by the late great Stanley Kubrick. Spielberg's Artificial Intelligence is the best science fiction film of the best decade, because it actually tels a story worth telling and tells it well. The symbolic worth alone of this film should put it in the top 5 science fiction films of all the time, but its emotional weight is what is really going to win over its unsuspecting audience. Artificial Intelligence is an unforgiving film, one that tells a discomforting story about humanity's worst traits, and the ever-lasting mark it is bound to leave on this planet. But maybe the best part of the film is that it's a story about the love between a mother and her son, and how it can transcend time, space and even life itself.

What is the true power of friendship? Is friendship love in an different form? Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings explores the lengths we will go and the sacrifices we will make to protect a true friend. And while that is it's central theme, the ideas of life and death, good and evil, intelligence and strength, love and hate, are all explored on a level that transcends the broad definitions of the above terms and puts them at conflict. Truthfully I can't ever really express how much I love this film, and give clear reasons as to why it is the best film, not just of the last decade, but of all time, so I'll let it speak for itself, by ending this post with the most moving line ever uttered on film:

"I'm glad to be with you, Samwise Gamgee, here at the end of all things." - Frodo in The Lord of the Rings.

Top 50: 2000 - 2009 #20 - #11

2010-01-17T13:49:00.016-06:00

An immigration movie that successfully skirts controversy by focusing on the individual plights of the characters rather than the political viewpoints they may represent, Jim Sheridan's In America is a poignant and emotionally involving drama that is worth seeing over and over again.

M. Night Shyamalan's Signs not only has the power to restore one's faith in cinema, it can also restore the viewer's faith in him or herself. There isn't a shred of pessimism or cynicism in Signs, and Shyamalan's sincerity, intelligence and belief in the power of humanity makes this film a powerful spiritual and intellectual journey.

A film of unprecedented importance, Clint Eastwood's Flags of our Fathers is a tireless study of what it means to be a hero and the way heroism has been often mistakenly defined in the past. The film is surprisingly applicable to the modern day, not just because of the current wars, but also because the word 'hero' is so liberally being used these days, that there is a danger its true definition may be lost.

If James Cameron's Avatar proves anything, it's that there is a need for cinema to be shown in movie theaters, not on small screen TVs, portable DVD players, etc. It is a glamorous, beautiful, fun action movie with a heart and while Cameron may favor style over substance, his ability to endear us to the innocent aliens residing in Pandora, is as frighteningly potent as his ability to make us hate our fellow human beings.

Alejandro Amenabar's The Sea Inside is a conflicting look at euthanasia that is nevertheless filled with hope, love, and lessons about life that are extremely valuable. A terribly sad film, The Sea Inside may be too much for some viewers, but sticking through to the end is nothing short of an amazing and fulfilling experience.

Romance has never been as quietly dramatic as it was in Kar Wai Wong's masterpiece In the Mood for Love. But Wong does not frustrate his audience with a slow-moving, dialogue-heavy art piece - it is a fast-paced, exciting, dialogue-filled art piece, and its power to entrance the viewer is unprecedented.

Pixar's best film is the animated film that all other animated movies following it should be compared to. A work of pure genius and unadulterated fun, Finding Nemo lacks Pixar's worst qualities (overt humanization for one) and is one of the best adventure movies of the last decade.

The first time I saw Fernando Meirelles and Katia Lund's City of God was in theaters back in early 2003. I remember it vividly because it was one of the most traumatizing experiences I've ever had in a movie theater. About 30 minutes into this harrowing film I wanted to pause it, give myself a 10-minute mental break, and start it up again. But in a theater this was impossible and the film kept coming at me - disturbing image upon disturbing image, mercilessly for over two straight hours. It is a film-going experience like no other, and it's one I don't regret having.

The best film centered on Adolf Hitler was made in the last decade, but Oliver Hirschbiegel's Downfall has other distinctions. It is the best foreign film of the last decade, the best European film of the last decade, the most accurate portrayal of the Nazi ruling class ever, and a refreshingly even-handed treatment that actually portrays the Nazis as human beings, endlessly flawed as they are.

Vadim Perelman's House of Sand and Fog is a film that every person currently residing in the United States should see, as it portrays the often-calamitous conflicts that develop between good honest people over simple materialistic things. There are no heroes or villains in this story, just real people portrayed by Jennifer Connelly and Ben Kingsley in the best performances of their respective careers. This is a must-see film.

Top 50: 2000 - 2009 #30 - #21

2010-01-12T21:59:00.014-06:00

What does a film need to do to become a modern classic in just five short years? For Robert Zemeckis's The Polar Express, it wasn't an easy task, what with it's pioneering, but rough implementation of MOCAP technology causing an initial backlash among movie-goers, and yet here it is. The Polar Express has become the It's A Wonderful Life of the new millennium, and it's as powerfully moving as it is aesthetically pleasing.

Joe Wright's Atonement is not a 'nice' movie. The film has the audacity to make the claim that fabrication is an acceptable practice when writing about real people and events. The lesson the viewer learns during the harrowing two hours while viewing this film is that sometimes fiction can be more honest than the truth - a potential oxymoron that the strength of the film prevents the viewer from fully realizing.

Another technological marvel of the last decade, Sin City is also one of the most fun and breathtaking movie-going experiences ever. The members of the star-studded cast effortlessly morph into their characters, and nothing can prevent one from enjoying this work of art.

The best Will Smith movie of the last decade, is also the best Matt Damon movie of the last decade. Nothing could have prepared us for the surprisingly minor turns these two actors took in Robert Redford's stunning The Legend of Bagger Vance. You don't need to be a golf fan to fall in love with this wonderful film.

No one would have thought that the most powerful political film of the last decade would tell the story of a nymph-like creature living in the pool of an apartment building, but then again, when M. Night Shyamalan is involved anything is possible. Lady in the Water is a film that is so forceful and unapologetic, that even if one disagrees with its anti-war message, he or she will be left cheering at the end. This film demonstrates that if we stick together, no matter how different we may be from one another, we can achieve anything we set our mind to, and that may be the most pertinent message of the last decade.

The best documentary of the last decade sees director Werner Herzog editorializing about a tragic figure's life and death - that of one Timothy Treadwell - the titular Grizzly Man. It is a film made up largely of Treadwell's amazing footage, and Herzog's interjections make its impact even stronger. The last scene of the film, which plays as the credits roll, is one I will never forget.

Most Robert Zemeckis detractors tend to bypass the fact that Cast Away is one of his films - that's how great it is. And considering that most of Zemeckis's detractors hate cinema as an art form, and embrace Steven Soderbergh, it's actually saying quiet a lot.

Sadistic, cynical, violent... and yet still one of the most beautiful fairy tales ever told - Guillermo Del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth gets better and better with time.

Memento is still Christopher Nolan's best film, and that its storytelling style, along with it's aesthetic quality, haven't been duplicated yet (through many attempts since) speaks to just how well a filmmaker who isn't on top of the world can perform.

What's not to like? Martin Scorsese doesn't make a single wrong move with The Aviator - a star-studded historical epic that is almost uncomfortably accurate in its depiction of Howard Hughes's tumultuous life. It didn't go down easy when it first came out, and it still doesn't today, but it's certainly a trip worth taking.

Top 50: 2000 - 2009 #40 - #31

2010-01-11T19:41:00.014-06:00

A great example of American cinema, Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood is a beautiful and unconventional film that takes its viewer on an emotional roller coaster ride led by Daniel Day-Lewis's fantastic performance. Director Anderson's film is a political allegory of sorts, but even more so an exploration of people's ability to simultaneously destroy and create by utilizing the economics of capitalistic society. It is not a criticism of course, but one shouldn't be reluctant to call it a plea for change.

Unparalleled in its originality, Tim Burton's moving phantasmagoria Big Fish may be the legendary filmmaker's finest hour. For a film that features giants, three-headed women, and many other types of circus freaks, it finds a surprising balance between truth and fiction, and Burton is brave enough to maneuver between the two without warning the viewer. Big Fish is on its way to becoming a modern classic, and no wonder - I can't think of another mold that it might fit into.

Who would have thought that a sequel to the acclaimed 90's horror Silence of the Lambs would be director Ridley Scott's finest hour in the last decade. From the very start, Hannibal surprises, unnerves and disillusions its audience. Scott's film is not a simple horror film, and the themes it offers up with the scares - love, faith, innocence, guilt - are treated in a broad, but intelligent manner.

A major and important entry in Clint Eastwood's filmography, (Spike Lee be damned) Invictus represents the filmmaker at his best, because he has to rescue the film from a potentially cliched story. But great filmmaking always wins over cliche, not to mention great acting, cinematography, editing, score and of course a great message. Invictus has it all.

I knew how it was going to end, and it still surprised me! Joe Wright's Pride & Prejudice is that type of film. It has the power to touch the heart of even the biggest cynic, as its timeless themes are brought to life in what maybe the most satisfying adaptation of the Jane Austen classic yet.
Martin Scorsese's most underrated film, Gangs of New York signaled the beginning of a new phase of his career, and what a beginning it was. The last ten minutes of the film are ones that won't leave the viewer's mind easily and represent what Scorsese is best at - astonishing us through the use of pure cinema.

You have got to admit it - Hayao Miyazaki certainly has balls and his Spirited Away shows that. Refusing to fall into tiring anime conventions, Miyazaki created the most epic, moving traditionally animated film of the last decade. If the film doesn't please you (though it will) at least Miyazaki's fatal jab at the poisonous anime culture surely will.

One could talk about M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable for hours, but I'll keep it short by simply saying that it kept me on the edge of my seat throughout and was one of only two movies of the last decade (the other is further up in the countdown) to be able to do that every single time I watch it. Shyamalan is a master of suspense, but its his portrayal of the family drama at the center of this film that truly impresses.

Apocalypto may be summed up as two hours of terror, but director Mel Gibson still makes the viewer care about the Mayan hero at the center of the story. As seemingly one of the few Mayans who didn't contribute to the great civilization's self-destruction, Jaguar Paw is a hero worth rooting for. Of course you have to sit through a movie that makes The Passion of the Christ look like Finding Nemo, but it's still worth it.

I never thought action-helmer Tony Scott, would be involved with a film as engrossing and affecting as Man on Fire. That Scott is still able to come up with some of the millennium's most iconic imagery despite his shaky (to say it lightly) camera-work is a testament to the stregth of the material. Lets say it like it is - Man on Fire may be the only film on this countdown that I have never heard someone say they disliked - that's how unyielding and poignant Scott's masterwork is.

Top 50: 2000 - 2009 #50 - #41

2010-01-10T11:21:00.012-06:00

A powerful revision of the style Paul Thomas Anderson and Robert Altman had perfected before it, Paul Haggis's Crash is one of the most effective pieces of melodrama of the last decade. Haggis's characters don't need to be fully developed for the audience to understand their respective plights, because the script doesn't short-change them. That the way we feel toward and relate to other people reveals the most about who we are on the inside, is a fact that this thoughtful, rule-breaking film utilizes to its full potential.

A comic book movie turned into a film-school-in-a-box project by artistically-inclined filmmaker Ang Lee, 2003's Hulk represents a turn of the tide against the simpleton heroes of comic books past, and toward an unfailing display of humanity. Lee humanizes the Bruce Banner character and puts him squarely within the real world - our world, making the film's nightmarish scenario all the more effective. I remember the first time I saw Hulk in a theater and the dream sequence Bruce had about his mom's death had just ended with a green explosion against a black screen (Lee's symbolic expression of anger emerging out of total sadness and desolation), when a young lady sitting right behind me uttered "Oh my God" under her breath - I couldn't have summed up my own reaction any better.

The failure to politicize the conflict between Israel and Lebannon is Waltz with Bashir's biggest success. Even if its unparalleled style and animation technique that director Ari Folman utilizes is put aside, what is left is one of the most honest, unflinching and accurate portrayals of the mental effects of war on the human mind.

An honest heartfelt piece of Americana, Roger Donaldson's World's Fastest Indian also contains one of the most touching performances of Anthony Hopkins's career. For a story about a New Zealender in his 70's who travels the U.S. so he could try to brake the land speed record using an Indian motorcycle that he himself built, it is a surprisingly thoughtful, exciting and relatable motion picture. You don't have to be a racing fan to get emotional at the end of this film which is maybe the most compelling biopic of the last decade.

I am usually tough on romantic comedies, but Bonnie Hunt's Return to Me demonstrates how powerful the genre can be when life isn't portrayed simply as pure romance. In Return to Me the two characters (played flawlessly by David Duchovny and Minnie Driver) are brought together by a tragedy, and an act of fate. Neither one of the characters comes off as needy, vulnerable or weak - their connection is an example of perfect love.

I'm not sure of the exact moment I realized the importance of Paul Greengreass's United 93, but I'm sure it was during one of the half-dozen times I saw it while it was still playing in theaters back in 2006. Released roughly five years after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, United 93 showed the strength of a group of people who wanted to live as much as anyone in their situation would want to, but chose to risk their lives so other innocents like them could be spared. It is impossible to bring the victims of 9/11 back, but United 93's accurate portrayal does so in spirit, and that certainly earns it a spot on this list.

One of the forgotten films of the last decade, Scott Hicks's Hearts in Atlantis based on the short story by Stephen King deserves some kind of reintroduction to audiences. It wasn't met with much fanfare back in 2001, but Anthony Hopkins's stirring performance (not to mention Anton Yelchin) builds the film toward an emotional climax as powerful as that of that other popular King adaptation about growing up Stand By Me. Since most of the readers of this blog may not have seen this film, I implore you to do so, it is a wonderful gem that needs to be uncovered by as many people as possible.

A hard-hitting Holocaust fantasy, Mark Herman's The Boy in the Striped Pajamas has the power to stun the viewer into emotional submission without the utilization of any special effects or directorial showmanship, but simply through a script that renders multidimensional characters, and actors that turn in amazing performances. The film is not without its flaws especially in the way it treats its subject matter, but its power makes them easy to overlook. Overall, this is the most powerful Holocaust film of the last decade, and the best one since Schindler's List.

Philip Groning's reflective Into Great Silence can best be described as over three hours of meditation. Groning's stunning documentary was shot during his stay at a French Christian monastery over the course of a whole year. It moves at a deliberate pace, but the patient viewers will find it endlessly rewarding.

Frequent bursts of energy can be found throughout Darren Aronofsky's The Wrestler - a film that so often wallows in former pro-wrestler Randy the Ram's (a magnificent Mickey Rourke) struggle to matter in a world that has stopped caring about him. A rough portrait of a broken man, The Wrestler is a film of triumph and sadness, successfully mirroring real life.

Top 50: 2000 - 2009 Honorable Mentions

2010-01-09T10:58:00.013-06:00

A surprisingly artistic entry in the superhero genre, Batman Begins not only revitalized the beloved dark superhero, but also set a dramatic and aesthetic standard that films of its type have been trying to reach ever since. Few have succeeded in blending drama and action as well as director Christopher Nolan did with this film.

Ang Lee is no poser. Due to his unexpected treatment of a potentially cliched story, Brokeback Mountain has become one of the definitive films of the past decade. Lee grounds the story so well that people of all sexual orientations were able to relate to the hopeless characters in this film.

Surely not an exercise in cinematic restraint, Julian Schnabel's The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is all the better for it. Seeing the world through an almost fully paralyzed human being's point of view made for the some of the most effective and affecting movie-going experiences of the last decade. Best part - the characters retain their humanity, making it a complete achievement in cinematic art.

One of the few Gus Van Sant films that can ever be called resourceful, Finding Forrester may also be his most underrated film. For once Van Sant tells a story in a simple, straight-forward, focused manner. The film is therefore able to inspire and teach the audience about the importance of writing as an artistic outlet.

Clint Eastwood's efforts behind the director's chair are usually thematically complex, understated examples of cinema, but Gran Torino is an over-the-top anti-racism parable with a strong and forceful message that Eastwood tackles as effectively as ever. Anchored by his strong central performance, Gran Torino will be a favorite to movie-goers for a long time to come.

A taut science fiction thriller with a heart and intelligence to spare, Steven Spielberg's Minority Report trumps most other films of its ilk, due to a heroic and heartfelt performance by Tom Cruise, realistic special effects, and best of all, an unconventional and risky ending. It is hard to fall in love with this film with just one viewing, but with time, Spielberg's skill definitely shows through.

The best musical of the last decade, Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge! is not pure escapism. Sure, it is the most fun you could have at a movie theater while watching a musical, but unlike Rob Marshall, Luhrmann is unwilling to settle with just a simple movie. There is an innocence to this film that lends it surprising, heartbreaking poignancy not usually found in the juvenile musical efforts of the past decade.

Unfairly labeled as the lesbian Brokeback Mountain, Pawel Pawlikowski's My Summer of Love is about much more than suppressed sexual freedom. In a single frame, exchange or dialogue, Pawlikowski tackles religion, family, social class dynamics, and love all at once, and by the end of this short understated little film, one literally feels exhausted due to the sheer power all these themes inflict on the unsuspecting viewer.

Good grief! Though Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ may be as violent and aesthetically pleasing as, ironically, Lars von Trier's Antichrist, it is the better film simply due to Gibson's honest lens. The best films of all time are made by filmmakers who truly believe their subject matter, and Gibson believes in Jesus's struggle, body and soul. The resulting film is a testament to that belief.

After a disappointing initial entry into the series, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2 revitalized an already boring character, giving him the complexity and emotions he desperately needed. But Spider-Man 2 also represents a revolution in the superhero genre, as Raimi's film demands an intellectual investment from the audience - something few superhero movies had attempted before, but many tried to replicate after.

2010-01-01T14:29:00.010-06:00

There's one thing that's certain about the year 2009 - the general public's stronger embrace of film as both an outlet for entertainment and an art form. When both Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire can be labeled as box office hits, one can easily deduct that all ends of the film making spectrum can yield financial success, and as films like Nine and Pirate Radio demonstrated, financial failure. The question then becomes, how much of 2009's record-setting box office is based on the quality of the releases, and how much of it is due to successful marketing campaigns, or other external influences like the economy? It is a difficult one to answer, but one thing is true - 2009 was a much better year for film than '08 or '07 quality-wise. Filmmakers like David Yates (Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince) and Joe Wright (The Soloist) were not afraid of breaking out of the expected mainstream mold within their films. While the tried-and-true blockbuster formula reaped rewards for filmmakers like JJ Abrams and James Cameron, it was refreshing to see novel ideas like the visual sound sequence in The Soloist become culturally accepted staples, embraced and unquestioned by the general public. Does it also say something about us as an audience that we now gravitate away from the cliches so well established within the past decade, and demand more originality and risk in the films we watch? It certainly seems that way. For we know that the greater the risk the greater the reward, and if films like (500) Days of Summer and Antichrist are any indication, filmmakers are aggressively going after those rewards by pulling out all the stops and all the tricks they have up their sleeve, careless of the fact that the smattering of ideas that may show up in the final product may turn away most audience members. In my humble opinion that carelessness is something that is required in good art. Some of the best moments of cinema in 2009 were pretentious over-indulgent moments, during which filmmakers, from Neill Blomkamp (District 9) to Rian Johnson (The Brothers Bloom), elected to fearlessly show potentially ridiculous sequences in their full glory, simply because they believed in them. It is that type of fearless filmmaking that I judged most favorably. People often ask me why I've been so indifferent to the box office behemoth that was The Blind Side and the answer is simple: director/writer John Lee Hancock decided to stick to a storytelling formula that brought nothing new to the sports drama. Every film, no matter what its quality, adds something to the genre it is a part of, if it can be pigeon-holed in a specific one, but The Blind Side represents a vacuum lacking creativity, originality and love for the craft, instead choosing to become a melodramatic weep-fest that isn't afraid to throw away the poignancy and importance of the story its based on. Of course, to say that Hancock is the only filmmaker guilty of missing the point in 2009 would be widely untrue. Others like Michael Bay, Paul Weitz, and Marcus Nispel, to name just a fraction of previously-successful filmmakers succumbing to mediocrity, were also reluctant to add anything new to the respective genres their films represented.

Which brings me to the reason I do this every year - to attempt to single out films that are worth the money spent on tickets or DVDs as ones the readers of this blog should see, and to advise the reader to keep away from the most unworthy ones. To that end, I hope you enjoy reading the rest of this post as much as I did writing it, and feel free to leave a comment. I will respond to all voiced opinions, whether they are favorable or not. Before I get to the lists though, as usual, here are the annual:
Most Overrated Film: Star Trek

Most Underrated Film: My Sister's Keeper

Most Boring Good Movie: The Road

Most Exciting Bad Movie: Jennifer's Body

Most Beautiful Movie: Avatar

Ugliest Movie: Halloween II

Best Horror: The Fourth Kind

Best Comedy: (500) Days of Summer

Best Animation: Waltz with Bashir

The Average Movie: Duplicity

And now...
These are quiet simply the worst films of the past year. I can't recommend you view any of these films unless you are serious about your masochism, or you feel like you've had a pretty good month and want to balance it out with some negativity. The films are rated out of ****. The titles link to the respective films' IMDB entries.

Dis-Honorable Mentions: Bride Wars, Confessions of a Shopaholic, The Girlfriend Experience, Land of the Lost, Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li

10. The Stepfather (dir. Nelson McCormick) (*) - Seeing The Stepfather was the least exciting film-related moment of 2009 for me. Since it is a remake of a film I had seen before (the 1987 Terry O'Quinn starrer), I already knew what was going to happen, but I still expected there to be some mystery, some cleverness or creativity, something to keep me in my seat! While the film isn't a shot-by-shot remake a la Michael Haneke's Funny Games (2008), it is even less exciting then that example, because the filmmakers have decided to almost clinically capture this story, lazily sticking to the blandest color pallets, line deliveries, and camera angles. The Stepfather is a lifeless film - a vacuum of unoriginal material that leaves its viewer incredulous as to how boring the art form can get.

9. The Strip (dir. Jameel Khan) (*) - I may be one of at most 50 people (all Chicagoans) to have seen this rarity which plays like a Kevin Smith film by way of Jay Chandrasekhar. Yet, director Jameel Khan's film lacks the comedic bite that both of those filmmakers incorporate into their films. The Strip is simply a safe, uneventful PG-13 film lacking any characters, situations or ideas that the audience can feel good about connecting to. The only thing worse than the film's lethargic beginning, is its third act attempt at inspiration, not because this is a bad idea, but because it is as badly put together as the rest of the film. It's almost like tricking the audience into believing that this film was actually worth it, and slapping them in the face for being so accepting of its flaws and open to actually liking it. What a tease!

8. New in Town (dir. Jonas Elmer) (*) - I have been a defendant of Renee Zellweger's for the longest time, simply because she is undoubtedly a great actress. With New in Town she has shown most of my arguments to be unfounded. This film isn't a mere blemish on her relatively consistent career - it is an unprecedented, incomparable piece of shit that makes me question her integrity and her ability as an actress. Who in their right mind would have read this morbidly one-note, flagrantly offensive script without wincing at the possibility of it actually becoming a film one day? But it's not just the script that is terrible, the directing by hack Jonas Elmer, the acting by the whole cast (not even making an exception for JK Simmons) and the high school grade production values, all come together to make this a film that its creators should be ashamed of.

7. I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell (dir. Bob Gosse) (*) - I am usually not one to condemn a film simply due to its relentless cynicism - Requiem for a Dream is one of my favorites after all. But Bob Gosse's 'comedy' I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell is really something special. It is an autobiographical tale of one Tucker Max - a horrible human being from what I could discern, who goes around making people miserable so as to feel better about himself. Having not read the book the film is based on I can't really judge Max based on anything but this film, and this film makes him look like a sociopathic, love-deprived, hate-filled excuse of a human being. And get this - the film actually wants us to like him. In fact, the people that it portrays as the 'bad guys' in the film are so much easier to connect with, because they actually exhibit humanity, unlike the 'hero' of the story who does everything in his power to destroy it.

6. Dragonball: Evolution (dir. James Wong) (*) - Remember the days when James Wong made merely average movies like Final Destination and The One? Those days are long gone. With Dragonball: Evolution Wong has, I'm afraid, shown the real limits of his 'talent'. I had the unique experience of viewing this film without having seen a single episode of the popular Anime it's based on - "Dragonball Z", but from what I hear it is very unfaithful to the source material. But who cares? Even if it "Dragonball Z" fans had told me that it stayed true to the series I would have hated the film nonetheless. It's juvenile to a fault, the fight scenes in The Pink Panther 2 were better choreographed, and the acting is the worst of the year. But I haven't even gotten to the best part yet - the special effects. I say if you don't have the budget for special effects, don't include any. Just make it a gritty action film if you must. Unfortunately, Wong thinks different. The film is full of colorful but(t) ugly sprites that are stand-ins for the fireballs and dragons that populated the original series. Hey, I just thought of a reason why we should celebrate this movie! It might end Wong's filmmaking career. Now that is a good thought.

5. Miss March (dir. Zach Cregger and Trevor Moore) (1/2) - I don't know where these two guys came from. I hope they never make another movie. I think that pretty much sums it up.

4. Old Dogs (dir. Walt Becker) (1/2) - I'm not sure that this is the send-off that Bernie Mac deserves. Yet, it is fitting that his swan song is the best part of this train wreck of a movie. Worst part: Seth Green. Though I let out a forced laugh when he got kicked in the balls, because that's how I feel about this talentless hack. Or maybe the worst part is Robin Williams in a role he continuously finds himself signing up to play. For every great performance like 2009's World's Greatest Dad there seem to be six like this one. Or maybe the worst part is that all of this talent (not including Seth Green of course) couldn't come up with one -- NOT ONE -- single funny joke, situation, anything that would help an audience member realize he or she is actually watching a comedy, not a depressing study of the lengths actors would go for a quick paycheck.

3. All About Steve (dir. Phil Traill) (1/2) - Sandra Bullock was in three bad movies in 2009, but this one easily takes the cake. For those of you who were quick to fall in love with her after seeing The Proposal and The Blind Side (heck, even I'm guilty of liking her slightly more after her efforts in Crash, The Lake House, and Infamous) All About Steve must have been a much-needed awakening to who the real Sandra Bullock is. She is an annoying, talentless, over-hyped 'actress' getting by on her looks who can't emote to save her life. Even porntstar Sasha Grey showed more emotion in that vapid Soderbergh piece The Girlfriend Experience. In fact, I am willing to go out of my way here and say that the only reason All About Steve is in the bottom 10 of 2009 is because of Bullock's involvement. A different actress would have at least played her batshit-crazy role for laughs, but Bullock is too self-important to be laughed at. She would be happy to know I didn't laugh at her throughout the running time of this film, not even a slight chuckle.

2. Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel (dir. Betty Thomas) (1/2) - What is more annoying than Sandra Bullock? Admittedly, few things are, but they can all be found in this film. Namely: David Cross, Jason Lee, and chipmunk voices. Those three factors put together made this film one for the record books. I still cannot believe I didn't walk out of this film at the 10 minute mark when I had gotten so fed up with the chipmunks that I felt my head was going to explode from their over zealously squeaky delivery of some of the worst humor written in the history of cinema. This is the first movie to ever make me cover my ears, not because it was loud, but because I just wanted those voices to stop. I prayed for them to stop with tears in my eyes and when the credits finally started rolling I ran out of the theater so fast, people thought there was a fire. If you want an experience similar to this one, see this film.

1. Transylmania (dir. David Hillenbrand and Scott Hillenbrand) (none) - Spoof films must be really hard to do right, because this is the third year in a row that a spoof has appeared in my bottom 5. Transylmania spoofs the recent trendy vampire films. I guess I should chalk this up as yet another reason I want to meet Stephanie Meyer in person. I want to thank her for inspiring the filmmakers behind this piece, and I also want to ask her if she plans on going to Heaven, cause I think Satan has reserved a special seat for her in Hell. That last sentence made me smile. Transylmania has turned me into a psychopath.

But enough negativity...
The following is a list of the 10 best film of 2009. While this is a more mainstream list than last year's, it contains a couple of films that may not be as familiar, and may need to be searched out in order to be enjoyed. But a film does not always need to be a high-budget, popular motion picture in order to reward its viewers, and this list proves that. The films are rated out of ****. The titles link back to the respective films' IMDB entry.

Honorable Mentions (alphabetical): Brothers, Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire, The Road, Up and Up in the Air

10. A Christmas Carol (dir. Robert Zemeckis) (***1/2) - How can a film based on the Charles Dickens classic "A Christmas Carol" still be able to surprise, excite, and please its audience if it is the 55th (!) version of the story to be adapted to the big or small screen? Simply - by making it faithful-to-a-fault, with beautifully rendered visuals, and a central performance that represents Scrooge's demeanor which fluctuates between over-the-top and understated from one moment to the next. Well, actually it isn't that simple, but filmmaking pioneer Robert Zemeckis takes on that challenge and succeeds on all counts. Zemeckis uses the latest in motion capture technology to infuse life into the story that it has frequently lacked in the past. But A Christmas Carol is not just a special effects spectacle. Its best parts, in fact, are the low-key happenings in Scrooge's journey that Zemeckis pulls off so skillfully and seamlessly, that they represent some of the best pieces of filmmaking of the year. Case in point: in one scene Scrooge looks out the window of his house and sees all the condemned ghosts walking the streets in misery and regret. It is a sequence that has never been pulled-off in an adaptation of the story in the past, but in this film it fits so well, that one wonders why it wasn't included in previous versions. Maybe it is the simple fact that Zemeckis is the most talented filmmaker to tackle the story yet, and the only one fearless enough to attempt this sequence. But Zemeckis demonstrates his fearlessness in another way - by making this a film for adults rather than strictly children. Most of the film's dialogue, with lines lifted straight out of the book, is written in the olde English style Dickens used, and may turn off some younger viewers. In my opinion, this presents itself as an opportunity for kids to identify the time period of the story through more than just its setting, but also its authentic characters. In that way and many others, Robert Zemeckis's A Christmas Carol is the most resourceful, authentic, and visually pleasing adaptation of the classic novel ever released.

9. Sherlock Holmes (dir. Guy Ritchie) (***1/2) - First things first - this film is not for the purists of Arthur Conan Doyle's famous stories of detective Sherlock Holmes. Director Guy Ritchie and screenwriters Anthony Peckham and Simon Kinberg have removed most of Doyle's sleuthing material and themes in favor of action-laden, but still clever sequences involving the titular character and his faithful sidekick Dr. Watson. While this may seem like it's a recipe for disaster, it turns out to be just what this character needs. Ritchie is comfortable in this area, as his skills fit nicely within the action-comedy movie mold. But just like he did with Snatch, Ritchie doesn't abandon characterization, instead offering us teasing glimpses into Holmes's intelligence, Watson's quick wit, and Irene Adler's (played wonderfully by Rachel MsAdams) sexuality. Ritchie has a good cast that helps elevate the film beyond just being the first entry in an action franchise. A game Robert Downey Jr. makes Holmes instantly likable and approachable, something Doyle's character lacked, and Mark Strong's Lord Blackwood is actually pretty creepy and a match for Holmes and Watson in both intelligence and skill. Also he is one of the best villains of the year, with a good mysterious side which keeps the detective (and audience) guessing until the end. This is certainly one of Ritchie's best films, and it shows his commitment to making an entertaining mainstream action film. He also throws in some wit and cleverness that make the film enjoyable for people of all ages.

8. Coraline (dir. Henry Selick) (***1/2) - Written and directed by the great Henry Selick based on the book by the equally great, or maybe greater Neil Gaiman, Coraline is the best film of its kind since The Nightmare Before Christmas. Selick has always been the bridesmaid, never the bride. Most of the credit and recognition for his acclaimed The Nightmare Before Christmas went to producer Tim Burton, while most of the blame for James and the Giant Peach not living up to expectations went to Selick. Since then, Burton and Selick have gone their separate ways in stop-motion animation. Burton's entry was the forgettable, sleep-inducing The Corpse Bride; Coraline is Selick's answer. It's placement on the list should indicate to the reader that Selick has shown up his pal Burton in every way possible. While it's frustrating to still see people say things like "Oh, I thought this was directed by Tim Burton" regarding Coraline, come Oscar time Selick will get his just recognition. The film is a nightmarish scenario in which the titular character is bored and frustrated with her parents, so she slips into an alternate world which coincides with the real one. At first it seems so much better, as her new counterfeit mother is so much more fun and does everything her real mother refused to do for her. Unfortunately, this turns out to be too good to be true. Selick's film is frightening and disturbing, with some images that may never leave my mind, at least not willingly, but it is one that children must seek out. The message of the film is valuable and the way Selick warns his viewers of the terrible consequences of seeking out a non-existent better life are forceful and effective. Coraline affects the viewer on a visceral level previously unseen in animation targeted at children, and it deserves as much recognition as it can possibly get.

7. My Sister's Keeper (dir. Nick Cassavetes) (***1/2) - It is easy to label Nick Cassavetes' latest as a manipulative, unfair film that has only one goal - to make its audience cry, and in fact many have. But it is not an easy bandwagon for me to jump on. For a story about a child inflicted with cancer, and the decisions her sister Anna must make as to whether to help her sister or not by donating her kidney, it is surprisingly light-handed and is never manipulative. The book the film is based on asks many questions, and the film keeps them intact. The most troubling of these questions is if it is worth it for Anna to donate a kidney to the sick sister Kate, if her chances to live even after the transplant would be as low as they are before the transplant? Most filmmakers would skip over this uncomfortable thought, but Cassavetes makes it the film's centerpiece. Still, he dodges heavy handedness and melodrama, instead favoring scenes in which the interactions between the characters themselves, create the emotions that the viewer will feel while watching it. That is until the end when all the characters, including some supporting ones, realize how their lives are also filled with life-and-death choices similar to the ones the main family in the film must struggle all the time. One then realizes that we are all linked by the choices we make, that our individual suffering is the suffering of those around us and society as a whole. It is a profound message that few filmmakers would be able to pull-off, but Casavettes has yet again gone above and beyond, and made this fearless workmanlike effort the most touching films of the year.

6. (500) Days of Summer (dir. Marc Webb) (***1/2) - Billed as an anti-love story, (500) Days of Summer may be the Annie Hall of this century. The story of a man hopelessly falling in love with a woman who does not feel the same way is one that I found very easy to connect with, and it helps that it is so deftly directed by Marc Webb and wonderfully acted by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel as the two love interests. The main reason why this film is a success is the subtlety with which the story is told. There is substance in a single glance exchanged between the two leads that can never be replaced with a scene of dialogue. Webb shows up more accomplished directors like Judd Apatow by utilizing the film's aesthetic in highlighting its strong thematic elements. Webb's success is surprising, and some of the sequences he includes in the film, especially near the end are jarring in both appearance and meaning. But Webb never loses his audience simply because, no matter how many fantastical ideas are thrown at the screen, the central relationship remains real and palpable. The film grounds the idea of love, yet still portrays it as something that is very difficult to obtain. But it is the fact that we need love in order to live any type of fulfilled life that is truly what's most heartbreaking about this film.

5. Crazy Heart (dir. Scott Cooper) (***1/2) - The best acting performance of the year belongs to Jeff Bridges as broken down country singer Bad Blake in Crazy Heart - the best biopic to hit the screen in more than a decade. What's most amazing about the film is how well director Scott Moore is able to keep up with Bridges, and how well Bridges's surroundings and supporting actors hold up in light of his presence. What sets the film apart from other biopics is the way it isn't afraid to show the complete destruction of its character without flinching, the way it touches us through mere lines of dialogue not director or actor showmanship moments, the way the film's slow, weary pace actually adds to the drama, and the way the songs themselves have the ability to touch us and are not seen by the filmmakers as just a collection of greatest hits that they wanted to insert into the film. It is a simple film at first glance, but its emotional complexity comes through with repeat viewers (though I've only seen it twice, I plan on seeing it again very soon). Even though it is a small film, it's not an indie, because it doesn't attempt what independent films frequently do - insert various metaphoric, abstract scenes that seemingly don't fit within the story unless one makes an out-of-left field connection to something totally unrelated. No, this story is straightforward, and all the more powerful for it. At the end of the film we stop thinking of the character as Jeff Bridges but as Bad Blake and one has to have a heart of stone to not shed a tear for him.

4. The Cove (dir. Louise Psihoyos) (***1/2) - Surely, the most important film of 2009, The Cove is a documentary that follows a group of environmental activists who attempt to stop Japanese fishermen from killing hundreds of dolphins per year off the coast of Taiji. Not only are the actions of the Japanese abusive to the animals, but they are also dangerous to humanity, since they supply markets with mercury-tainted dolphin meat. The greatest meat-consumption activists on the planet wouldn't be able to defend the fishermen's actions. Heck, even they know they can't, so they have surrounded the cove within which they operate with a barbed wire fence to keep their operation hidden from society. Not that this can stop former dolphin trainer Ric O'Barry and a group of fellow animal activists from doing everything in their power, including risking their own well-being to thwart the criminals' continuous unlawful, immoral, an inhumane actions. Even those turned off by animal activism will not be able to deny that the passion behind their efforts, the real emotions they feel toward the animals, and the full investment of themselves, both physically and mentally, into saving the dolphins from suffering, is genuine. The Cove has the potential to be a mainstream success, at least on DVD, since it subject and the way it is explored, in aesthetic and thematic terms, create a motion picture worth buying by anyone who loves animals just a little bit.

3. Waltz with Bashir (dir. Ari Folman) (***1/2) - A mix between a documentary and a fictitious war film, the animated Waltz with Bashir is thankfully as complex in its ideas, as it is in the way it mixes genres. It certainly makes for compelling cinema, as it tells the of the dreams of soldiers who participated in the Lebanese war with Israel. Since these dreams are not exact accounts, the film is filled with fantastical elements and scenes that seem out of place for a war film. But what are seemingly scenes that cause the viewer to distance him or herself from the characters, actually does the opposite. Folman's gets us as close to seeing the conflict the way the soldiers saw it as possible. We are not seeing a 'mostly true' account of something that probably happened during the war, but a truthful retelling of what the soldiers saw in their dreams, word-for-word. Folman incorporates an animation style that is similar to rotoscoping in the way it looks, but no actual footage was shot for the movie. Instead all the scenes were drawn, after which flash-type animation was applied to create the finished effect. This film was in production for four years, but the goal of Folman was not for it to become a financial success, instead he simply hoped it would serve as a film that highlights the atrocities and complexities of war. Message movies don't get any more honest then this.

2. Invictus (dir. Clint Eastwood) (****) - I would call this film The Blind Side done right, but that would severely diminish director Clint Eastwood's newest masterpiece. It tells of Nelson Mandela's attemt to unite South Africa by reviving the national rugby team and have it represent all of the country, not just one particular race. The film isn't a biopic of Mandela, though great insights into his political ideas are given by the filmmakers. Instead, it mostly focuses on the rugby team's efforts to improve over its less than impressive previous seasons. Led by Captain Pienaar (a surprisingly honest Matt Damon), the underdogs of the rugby league try their best to better themselves using the inspiration Mandela gives them. This may be Eastwood's most straight-forward work in its telling, but it is chock-full of metaphors. One can see the effort of the rugby team as paralleling that of Mandela as he tried to unite the nation. For Mandela recognized the danger of corrupt African governments, that filled white South Africans with hopelessness and fear, and through the formation of the rugby team led by a white South African, he sent a signal that he is not a victim of racial favoritism, but is in fact the president of all South Africans. But even if one does not get this from watching the film, it still remains extremely effective. Eastwood is not only able to pull-off great performances from all of his actors, he is also able to handle the rugby matches with a surprising deftness which makes this sport look interesting even for the uninitiated. The end of this film is uplifting, because the lack of politicizing makes its message widely applicable to all countries, not just South Africa. If you want to feel inspired to do better in the way you relate to people, or if you just want to feel a jolt of emotional uplift, see this film.

1. Avatar (dir. James Cameron) (****) - A step in the right direction for modern cinema, Avatar is the most easily digestible science fiction film since Cameron's Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Sure, many sci-fi films have come out in the intervening 18 years, but Avatar simply takes the cake, because Cameron doesn't settle for technological innovation alone, nice as that is, but instead infuses the film with a forceful anti-war, pro-environment message that is surprisingly pertinent in the modern day. Cameron is unafraid of endearing us to the humanoid beings living on Pandora, and fearlessly makes us hate the actual humans that invade the humanoid planet in favor of financial rewards. The political message is loud and unsubtle, but Cameron wouldn't have it any other way. What's most surprising is that Cameron has retained his eye for beauty in the years since Titanic, as Avatar contains some of the most beautiful images ever put on the big screen. It seems like just when all the surprises and tricks up Cameron's sleeve have been spent, another incomparably beautiful moment materializes to wow us into submission. To me Avatar represents what cinema is really about - an art form to be appreciated from a distance for its beauty, but also connected with personally. Zoe Saldana's Neytiri and Sam Worthington's Jake allow us to do the latter, because they are not short-changed by Cameron. He never betrays his characters, even the villains, by not providing characterization, even if he doesn't allow the viewer to pick sides. The reason Avatar tops this list is because it demonstrates the sheer power of every aspect of cinema that it employs, and the beauty that results from that utilization.

Later in the month I will be posting the Top 50 of the last decade (in parts, of course) so look forward to that.

Thanks for reading!

Top/Bottom List Disclaimer

2009-12-30T19:49:00.003-06:00

Hello valued readers,

Before I post my Year in Review for 2009, I want to alert you to the fact that there are a few major 2009 releases that will not be up for consideration due to them not opening within the Chicago area until sometime early next month. Therefore I will count these films as 2010 releases. While I have many blind spots every year, I think these films are important enough to warrant this disclaimer. The titles are as follows:

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus
The Lovely Bones
The White Ribbon

The list should be up shortly. I hope this does not detract from your reading enjoyment.

Thanks,

Stefan Vlahov

Halfway Report 2009

2009-06-30T11:23:00.010-05:00

Hey everyone! This post summarizes, in an extremely condensed manner mind you, the last six months in film. Like every other Halfway Report post, I will simply post the 10 best and 10 worst films of the year so far with their respective ratings (out of ****), but without an explanation, since I don't want to risk repeating myself when it comes time to post my End of the Year lists. I hope you enjoy these lists and I promise I will be posting more in the future. I am not letting this blog die, and I am working on becoming much more prolific. Thank you for reading.

Top 10

10. Knowing (***)
9. The Brothers Bloom (***)
8. Everlasting Moments (***)
7. Food Inc. (***)
6. The Soloist (***1/2)
5. Lymelife (***1/2)
4. Up (***1/2)
3. My Sister's Keeper (***1/2)
2. Coraline (***1/2)
1. Waltz with Bashir (***1/2)

Bottom 10

10. 12 Rounds (*1/2)
9. Land of the Lost (*1/2)
8. Bride Wars (*1/2)
7. Obsessed (*1/2)
6. Dance Flick (*1/2)
5. Confessions of a Shopaholic (*1/2)
4. The Girlfriend Experience (*1/2)
3. DragonBall: Evolution (*)
2. New in Town (*)
1. Miss March (1/2)

2005 Movies

2009-05-21T22:39:00.009-05:00

An archive of all the movies I saw in 2005! Reviews are linked and ratings are provided.

Enjoy!

Stefan Vlahov

The 40 Year-Old Virgin B
The Adventures of Shark-Boy and Lava-Girl in 3D D-
Aeon Flux C-
Alone in the Dark F
The Amityville Horror (2005) B
An Unfinished Life B+

Are We There Yet? D

2008-12-29T22:47:00.017-06:00

2008 was a memorable year by most standards. From the economic downturn, to a history-making election, with the Olympics and Heath Ledger's death thrown in for good measure (I'm sure I'm forgetting some other events), one can not deny it was an exciting year of ups and downs. That is unless, if you judged it solely based on the quality of film releases which may be the weakest its been since 2003. This year filmmakers reflected upon the world's current state of turmoil and neglected to respond, or did so ineffectively. The few films that tried to confront current issues directly (Under the Same Moon, Stop-Loss, The Band's Visit) have been met with undeserved indifference. Instead audiences have taken a liking for films that either attempt to gloss over them, or ignore them completely. Films also demonstrated a lot of misplaced emotions, paralleling the way people relate to our world. Titles like Miracle at St. Anna, The Happening, and Standard Operating Procedure show filmmakers stepping out of their comfort zones in order to send a biased message, with varying success. Documentaries suffered a downturn after last year's genre comeback, though some bright spots (Gonzo, Man on Wire) still showed how powerful they can be with the right idea in mind. Other niches like horror and westerns also suffered a bad year, but comedies, especially ones in the Judd Apatow vein, continued their reign.

Still, it can't be denied that this was a disappointing year. It is the first time since I have started critiquing film that I haven't awarded any movie four stars, while the number of films with one star and lower remained the same as usual. It is frightening to think that this trend may continue, but I don't think it will. Film quality is cyclical, and we may be in the deepest part of a lull. For 2009 there is nowhere to go but up.

Some interesting facts about my Top 10: Second time a particular filmmaker has held two spots on the list, no four star movies on the list, second time a particular filmmaker has held the #1 spot on the list, first time in 5 years there is a comedy on the list, first time ever there is a totally black and white film on the list, first time I had to use three star films for my honorable mentions.

I'll get to the lists soon, but first....

Most Overrated Film: Tell No One

Most Underrated Film: The Life Before Her Eyes

Most Boring Good Movie: 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days

Most Exciting Bad Movie: Transporter 3

Most Beautiful Movie: Australia

Ugliest Movie: Saw V

Best Horror: The Happening

Best Comedy: Tropic Thunder

Best Animation: Wall-E

The Average Movie: Righteous Kill

And Now....
The Bottom 10 of 2008:

These films are the worst of the worst. I would not recommend anyone seeing any of these films, unless its for free and some serious time-killing is needed. They are ordered from best worst (#10) to the very worst film of the year (#1). The ratings in parentheses are out of ****.

Dis-Honorable Mentions (in alphabetical order): Another Gay Sequel: Gays Gone Wild, Over Her Dead Body, Semi-Pro, Shutter and Superhero Movie

10. How She Move (*) - This film came out in January of 2008 which was so long ago that if it wasn't so unforgettably pedestrian, it may not even have made this list due to my negligence. Still, after 200+ films seen, I still can't get over its bad grammar, stereotype-infused script, and production values that make other dance films (Step Up 2 for instance) look like big-budget special effects blockbusters by comparison. Director Ian Iqbal Rashid's tendency to conform to pre-existing standards in the genre, including the common theme of tragedy initiating the need for dance as a release (a concept that is brilliantly explored in Save the Last Dance) rears its ugly head from the very beginning, and the film's unfortunate cliche characters are ones that only people with an IQ below 60 can relate to. I guess that is the filmmakers' generalization of this film's audience - how insulting!

9. College (*) - Drake Bell better be careful about the roles he picks in the future. If he wants his career path to follow that of his fellow Disney apprentice Zac Efron, he needs to make smarter choices in the future, and after College the three-strike rule will certainly apply to his future films. While watching this film I knew that this was bottom-of-the-barrel filmmaking at its worst, but when I looked for some type of redemption for all the disgusting scenes involving boring characters that are clones of the ones found in Superbad near the end of the film (Judd Apatow-style) I was left hanging. The one thing the filmmakers could not copy from Apatow's films (all superior by the way) is the fact that his films contain doses of humanity, however small. With College we get feces, vomiting, and fart jokes at our expense and that of the characters, and in the end it turns out that those are the only things the filmmakers cared about. Looking for what college to go to is an experience that deserves much better treatment.

8. The House Bunny (*) - This is the first time when underrated comedic talent Anna Faris has been the worst part of her film, and the fact that she's on screen for about 99% of the film's mercifully short 97 minute running time makes The House Bunny a hard film to sit through. Unlike in other films, Faris stumbles over the material, and seems uncomfortable as a Playboy bunny reject, though she has played self-demeaning characters in the past. My best guess for why that may have happened is that she thought it was all a big joke, as did I. Here is where I want to vent about the writers Karen McCullah Lutz and Kristen Smith. My question to them is - How can you follow one of the strongest writing debuts in recent memory (10 Things I Hate About You) with a string of horrors which represent the worst of the comedy genre? Titles like Legally Blonde and She's the Man are shadows of the complexity and beauty found in 10 Things, and The House Bunny is a new low even for them. This is probably helped by hack director Fred Wolf - the Uwe Boll of comedy, as this was his follow-up to the even worse Strange Wilderness (look further down on the list) and demonstrates that his knowledge of character development in comedic efforts is 1/16th that of mine, and anyone who has ever seen a good comedy.

7. Witless Protection (*) - Every year, I give Larry the Cable Guy the benefit of the doubt, and every year he ends up on this list - a trend that has spanned four years. It is not that I am not trying with his films, in fact it seems like I try harder and harder every time to find some part of the film that may leave me satisfied with the movie-going experience. I was yet again unsuccessful with Witless Protection - a film telling the story of a witless small-town sheriff (Larry) who gets himself in a situation that is too immense and complex for him. It is a story we've seen many times before, but it is also one that can equate some enjoyable afternoon fun on a rainy day, if done right. It is too bad then, that Witless Protection is laced with racism, sexism and other offensive material, none of which qualifies as funny. The worst offender is Larry himself, as he seems to turn even potentially funny situations into moments of stupidity as he goes for the most obvious jokes possible, which makes me believe that the length of this film's script must have been just under two pages, if you include a title page of course. Larry, for the fourth and hopefully final time, stick to stand-up.

6. The Love Guru (*) - Perhaps the only good thing about this film, is that the people involved didn't mean for it to be as unpleasant, embarrassing, and well, disappointing as it eventually turned out to be. Mike Myers really wants to please his fans, but the material lets him down and his talent fails to come through in the realization of these characters. The other actors are also terrible - Jessica Alba has never been worse, and Justin Timberlake loses all the acting cred he had built up to this point in titles like Alpha Dog and Black Snake Moan. The guru himself, Pitka (Myers) is unlikeable, annoying and the things he says are at times way too hard discern and easily confusing. I strained myself to keep up with the plot of this film more so than I did with Synedoche, New York and that is a lot of straining. Don't punish yourself with this film.

5. Strange Wilderness (1/2) - Director Fred Wolf's debut constitutes his second entry on this list, automatically launching him to the previously thought unreachable, Uwe Boll level in filmmaking. Strange Wilderness is the most pointless of all the films on this list, and one of the most dangerous. It embraces political incorrectness in the worst way, in that it makes it too obvious. The very beginning of the film almost announces that the film's goal is to portray viewpoints that most audience-members will disagree on. It fails at that, but succeeds at showing us characters that are under the influence of hallucinogens and marijuana stumble about in the wild (some Hollywood back lot no doubt) ad-libbing their way from pointless scene to pointless scene. One of the most meaningless movie-going experiences of the year.

4. In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (1/2) - The fantasy genre officially died with Uwe Boll's latest. All the hard work put in by Jackson, Adamson, and Columbus to establish it as a genre that film goers should not be afraid of embracing, was all tarnished with In the Name of the King. Because of this film, people have started looking at fantasy again as a genre that will treat them as if they needed to be walked through every scene. The laughably bad dialogue serves this purpose here, as Burt Reynolds's delivery of his lines is not only the weakest acting performance of the year, but also the most unneeded. The battle scenes are longer than any I've seen before, but they are mostly the same scene on a loop shot from different angles. The editing is random and the cinematography is the opposite of epic. In fact, everything in this film is the exact opposite of what it needs to be and what it claims to be. It is not fantasy, drama, or action - but an unintentional spoof of all those genres that spans almost two hours in torturing its audience. Once again, Uwe Boll has outdone himself.

3. Meet the Spartans (1/2) - Directors-from-Hell Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer are back and this time with a spoof of the film 300 so unfunny and brainless that at one point I actually felt embarrassed for myself and the rest of the audience that saw this with me for being tricked into watching it. That moment came a mere 5 minutes in. Supposed knee-slappers like Paris Hilton's "I'm a Hilton, I don't bow... but I bend over." and bad Yo mamma jokes are scattered throughout, as the film is all simply one unfunny joke after another with no story development, no sense of setting or passages of time, and most importantly no heart. It is an ugly, dirty mess that deserves to be forgotten. Speaking of which...

2. Disaster Movie (1/2) - Well at least they got the title right...

1. The Hottie and the Nottie (none) - Last year's worst film Bratz, has a lot in common with The Hottie and the Nottie. Case in point - the message it sends is also one that has the ability to hurt a lot of people if followed - the message that all girls should strive for beauty and popularity in order to get what they want. It is a message so ugly that at one point I did not care that I had seen better acting in high school plays, that the script had some of the worst lines imaginable, that Paris Hilton has most of the screen time and is incredibly annoying and unattractive, all I wanted was for it to end. And at the end when the film tries to repent its message, it doesn't do it with the enthusiasm and drive that it did while sending it. Do yourselves and humanity a favor and don't watch this film. Thank you!

And now...
The Top 10 Films of 2008

These films are the best of the year. I have become a tougher critic of late, which means that they had to really impress on all levels in order to get on this list. I think these films deserve at the very least a single viewing, and are ones that everyone can enjoy. They are numbered in ascending order (#1 is the best film of the year) and are rated out of ****. I hope you enjoy reading the list as much as I did putting it together.

Honorable Mentions (in alphabetical order): The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, The Dark Knight, The Happening, The Secret Life of Bees and Slumdog Millionaire

10. Changeling (***1/2) - One of two Clint Eastwood masterpieces this year, Changeling is an epic, emotional and provocative film that accurately captures police corruption in Los Angeles during the 1920s. It finds Eastwood, yet again challenging himself with something he has never done before - a drama set in the past that requires not only Eastwood's expectantly assured direction behind the camera, but also needs a strong production design, a captivating story, and a powerful central performance in order to succeed. The film succeeds with all those counts. While Eastwood may find it hard to improve on perfection (Flags of our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima), his directing is at least as strong as it was for those films, and he even takes a few surprising choices as parts of the film can easily be classified as thriller material. The film looks great, from Tom Stern's fittingly depressing cinematography, to the precise recreation of '20s Los Angeles which succeeds at taking you to a different time and place aesthetically more so than any other 2008 film not set in the present day. At the very center of it all is an excellent Angelina Jolie delivering a performance worthy of at least a nomination for all the major awards. She is given great support by such names like John Malkovich, Jeffrey Donovan and Michael Kelly. Changeling is not an easy film to watch - thematic elements like misogyny, psychological torture, and of course, child abduction are found and suggested throughout the running time, but staying through all the hurt that the character goes through will reap great rewards for the viewers.

9. Tropic Thunder (***1/2) - As Hollywood satire films go, Tropic Thunder may be the most extensive and complete example. It leaves no stone unturned and takes every opportunity to make fun of the extremely flawed system that produces the mainstream blockbusters we go see every weekend at the movies. Not only that, but it is also the funniest film of the year. With a cast of names which includes, but is not limited to talents like Jack Black, Robert Downey Jr., Nick Nolte, and Tom Cruise, you are surely going to laugh out loud a few times. This may be the first comedy in a long time that has gotten 'stupid humor' right. While what is going on screen is about as dumb as anything in the lowest of the low-brow comedy genre, the creativity in the writing forbids cheap jokes, and tries hard to make original material out of a story that we have seen many times in the past. While Ben Stiller still has some kinks to work out while in front of the camera, he is extremely competent in the director's chair, having the ability to handle big special effects sequences, and many genres in one. It helps that he has hired action cinematographer John Toll to give each scene a more believable look. Stiller says this film was 8 years in the making - it was worth the wait.

8. In Search of a Midnight Kiss (***1/2) - Every once in a great while a small film comes out of nowhere that is so powerful and so affecting, that it puts most big films, and in fact most other films to have come out during the year to utter shame. Suh is the case with In Search of a Midnight Kiss - a film that has comparatively low production values, but a very big heart. It tells the story of Wilson (Scott McNairy) a depressed man who wants to spend New Year's at home, alone in bed. But his best friend convinces him to put a personal ad in the newspaper, which helps him meet a romance-seeking woman (Sara Simmonds) who may just be his perfect match. The film is black and white as it relies mainly on the emotons that the characters express to move the audience, but that isn't to say that it isn't a great exercise in cinematography which captures the city of Los Angeles better than most color productions are able to. There is a lot of longing in this film, and a lot of talking, but when it all comes together in the end, the film revelas itself to be so much more. In Search of a Midnight Kiss is also proof that you don't need a complex screnplay to get people's attention. Expect the audience to laugh and cry along with this film's characters, without them being tricked into it by unneeded script cleverness.

7. Doubt (***1/2) - Not only is this film good because of its incredible acting and potent direction, but its timeliness is cannot be doubted. The film's portrayal of the dark side of Catholic schools may hit close to home, with its depiction of a priest who may have molested a young boy, and an evil nun who labels Frosty the Snowman as pagan and subversive. Ask any private school students about their experiences and they may mention suspicions and complaints about their teachers and superiors. But Doubt isn't really about that, it is about doubting yourself, your beliefs, and ultimately your faith. It is impossible to highlight the film's best moments without spoiling it, so I'll simply state that the ending of the film is one of the most powerful of the year, only because of the last lines uttered in the film and thier many meanings. Doubt is very much open-ended, but if the viewer thinks about it for a long enough time, the answers slowly start to reveal themselves. Both Philip Seymour Hoffman and Meryl Streep deserve serious consideration come Oscar time, as they show the very best acting on film this year, by anyone. See Doubt to witness a film working excellently on all calibers.

6. The Life Before Her Eyes (***1/2) - A film that not many people saw, but everyone needs to see is Vadim Perleman's sophomore effort The Life Before Her Eyes. A film that fearlessly combines the beauty and ugliness of life, and successfully shows the importance of the small moments as well as the big ones, it is truly a film that teaches us a lesson that we can value for the rest of our lives. Perleman pulls out the stops, and his film exhibits all the technical prowess that the drama genre permits, as well as creating an emotional roller coaster ride that causes discomfort and happiness within mere moments of its short running time. The film's visual and scripted 'tricks' are essential to the story and the audience will never feel cheated into a feeling or a concept. Perleman is unafraid of actually ending the film and tying up all the loose ends, because he is rightly confident in the material at hand. If you ever need a film that will reward you endlessly, at the small cost of having to sit through one of the most intense, disturbing scenes put on film this year, this is the film for you.

5. Blindness (***1/2) - Director Fernando Meirelles's faithful adaptatin of Jose Saramgo's novel by the same name is the most disturbing, evasive, and hopeless motion picture of 2008. What makes it great is the fact that it is also very realistic. The film's central dilemma - that almost everyone on Earth is instantaneously hit with the condition 'white blindness' is largely a metaphoric statement about the current situation in the world. Many have claimed that people are 'blind' to what is really happening, but only one filmmaker - Meirelles has enough courage to portray this fact in such a graphic and unforgiving way. Blindness is not recommended if you are suffering through a bout of depression or a moment of sadness. But whatever state of mind you see this film in, it will undoubtedly effect you and make you think twice about what people are trying to sell you is going on, versus the true reality.

4. Revolutionary Road (***1/2) - This is director Sam Mendes' best film. Yes, not even the tumuluous American Beauty, the thoughtful Road to Perdition, or the convincingly over-the-top Jarhead measure up to his greatest accomplishment yet - Revolutionary Road. After seeing this film one is compelled to label it as something it may not be due to the decision Kate Winslet's character makes at the end of the film. It is a decison infused with so many question that all start with Why? that it will stay in your head for a very long time after the screening. This type of powerful message filmmaking is what Mendes has wrongfully dodged until now, but it is wonderful to see him finally make a film that tries to say something more than what we readily see on the screen. The performances by reunited Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet are flawless, and the look of the film is easily comparable to the most beautiful of the year. This film may bedifficult to take in, but once you have, you'll be thankful you did.

3. Gran Torino (***1/2) - In all honesty, after the tour de force that was Changeling, I thought that Gran Torino would be an unneeded afterthought added on to the close of 2008. I was wrong, dead wrong. Gran Torino is not only a slightly better film than Changeling but it is a needed one indeed. It's simple story of an unappreciated old man struck a chord with me that I was not expecting it to. It is Eastwood's gracious response to Roger Donaldson's amazing World's Fastest Indian as it also pleads for society to have more respect toward its older members. It is a film made up of great acting moment after great acting moement, non-stop until the end, and Eastwood deserves a nomination for directing and acting for this masterpiece. This may not be his crown jewel (The Unforgiven and Letters from Iwo Jima are vying for that spot), but it is pretty darn close. See this film.

2. The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas (***1/2) - A kids movie that is definitely not for kids, The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas was the best film I had seen all year for the longest time. Its development toward its heart-stopping and shocking ending is similar to what you would find in a children's film, but the subject of this one is the Holocaust. It is told from the German point of view, just like Valkyrie, and portrays the innocence that some Germans exhibited during those terrible times - innocence very fittingly represented by an 8-year old boy who is quick to believe what may not really be true. I don't want to say anything more, because the film and especially the ending needs to be experienced first hand. The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas made me believe in the power of cinema again.

1. The Wrestler (***1/2) - Director Darren Aronofsky continues exploring death with The Wrestler, but unlike his last film The Fountain this is a different type of death - the death of the soul. Professioanl wreslter Randy "The Ram" Robinson's (Mickey Rourke) soul is gone as he realizes that he is at the end of his rope, or as he sees it, the end of his actual life. The performance by Mickey Rourke is an absolute powerhouse, and the effort behind the camera by Aronofsky matches Rourke turn by turn. The Wrestler is the best film of the year, because it makes powerful drama out of an unlikely character and is not afraid to show the blood that is spilled in the process. Not for the weak-hearted, this film is one that wallows in unforgiving realism - no metaphors, no fairy tales - just real life in all its ugliness. These days there is nothing we need more than that. The Best Film of 2008!

Thanks for reading!

Best of '05: The 40 Year-Old Virgin B

2008-12-16T21:56:00.011-06:00

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

Back in 2005, when Seth Rogen was nowhere near as annoying as he is today, The 40 Year-Old Virgin marked the beginning of Director/Writer/Producer Judd Apatow's reign over the comedy genre that four years later is undoubtedly, still going strong. In many ways, The 40 Year-Old-Virgin represents everything that is right with the Apatow style of comedy, as it mostly avoids the cliched perversions of his later efforts, but retains the attractive sincerity of his characters that enable the audience to connect to them and their predicaments much easier. Among other things The40 Year-Old Virgin also contains the now familiar episodic structure that became almost an annoyance in Superbad, but here it adds a nice pace to the proceedings which makes the 2+ hour running time pass by rather briskly. Arguably the best part about Virgin is that it starts out with a very simple story that anyone can get their head around and builds upon it using some interesting turns of events that spring out of the clever screenplay written by Apatow and the film's star Steve Carell.

The film tells the story of a 40 year old loner by the name of Andy Spitzer (Steve Carell) who appears to be the very definition of a geek. He collects action figures that never come out of their boxes, he does not drive a car but rides a bike to work because he does not yet have a license, and he is an introvert whose friends fear may be a serial killer. But, in the course of one faithful poker game, when Andy unsuccessfully participates in a raunchy guy talk episode, his co-workers David (Paul Rudd), Jay (Romany Malco), and Cal (Seth Rogen) find out that he has never hd sex, except with himself - a fact that they are determined to change, even against Andy's will.

The film walks a fine moral line, which if crossed, may have led to a backlash by the general public. The reason the film was met with a positive reaction, is because of the screenplay's reluctance to label Andy as the symbol for abstinence, and also its portrayal of abstinence in a neutral, if not a positive light. In fact the characters in the film who are most critical of Andy's being a virgin (Cal and Jay), are (purposefully?) written as cardboard cutouts without any inner demons. It is also an important point that their sex-obsessed behavior, it may be noted, has not led them any further in life than Andy. They are neither more successful within their careers, nor are they more successful in their relationships. The only way Cal is getting laid is if the girl is drunk, Jay is reduced to simply fantasizing about sleeping with promiscuous women while being tied up in a controlling relationship,and Andy is a emotional wreck who still pines for his ex-girlfriend and refuses to see any other women. It is arguable than that these characters are in fact, living vicariously through Andy's quest to lose his virginity. This is an intelligent move by writers Apatow and Carrell that certainly puts this above other films in its genre.

Still, The 40 Year Old Virgin is not without its flaws. While its predictability is in fact the easiest thing to forgive about it, the script's other mistakes, mainly the tendency to sacrifice character arches in order to increase the comedy to drama ratio makes it a flaccid dramedy. Apatow ventures into dramatic territory in the third act of the film when Trish (Catherine Keener) who is bound to be the love of Andy's life, starts suspecting he is hiding something and cuts their relationship short. Here Apatow feels the sudden impulse to insert unneeded and shallow comedic episodes involving Cal, Jay and Andy that stop the narrative in its track. Apatow may be a good filmmaker, but he lacks the bravery to surprise his audience with strong melodrama in the last act, which leaves the viewer simply satisfied, and not wholly fulfilled.

That isn't to say that the film fails in delivering its message that one's sexual lifestyle is a quality that he or she shouldn't be judged for. Sex is in the end, a big deal, and Apatow recognizes it as a thematic element that needs to be treated as such. This comes-off best in Kat Denning's wonderful portrayal of Trish's teenage daughter Marla who believes she is entitled to having sex at her young age, even if that may not be the case. The character's progression toward a change-of-heart near the end of the film keeps her from being a stereotype and the emotional bond that forms between her and Andy helps them both out in the end.

Review: Brick Lane C

2008-07-31T21:06:00.002-05:00

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

**This review may contain spoilers**

I'm usually the last to complain about films with female directors, but the way Sarah Gavron treats Monica Ali's subtle and largely preach-free novel "Brick Lane" makes her film a prime example of why femininity is a dangerous movement. To clear up - the writer Ali never wanted her book to be about the liberation of her main character - a young Bangladeshi woman named Nazneem (Tannishtha Chatterjee) living in London - whether that liberation is sexual or otherwise. All Ali wanted to write about was the culture clash that Nazneem experiences by the change brought upon her by an arranged marriage, and the confusion that it brings about in her life. But Gavron seemingly was not ready to commit to the material strongly enough to make this film anything more than one about sexual frustration and female liberalization that we see so often come out of Hollywood these days. Gavron's ill-founded treatment of Nazneem's relationship with a husband she was forced to marry - Chanu (Satish Kaushik), and with her secret lover Karim (Christopher Simpson) forces all the subtlety out of the story and makes the woman's plight for an equal social status the central focus of the story, leaving the culture clash part of the book, which is arguably the main reason Nazneem goes through all of this, on the back-burner. And at the end when Nazneem realizes she was wrong about both Chanu and Karim, the audience is told that it was not because of her miscalculation of either man's character, but because of their unfair action towards her, which screams of the worst kind of feminist attitude since In the Land of Women. It is a shame too, that this ghastly handling of the story squanders such fine performances by all the cast members. Chatterjee is such a strong actress that at the end of the film, when the film hits its emotional peak, she brings tears to our eyes - something that the film as a whole does not deserve. She is one of those actresses that can make the audience emotional just by using her amazingly well-timed delivery. Her male counterparts, Kaushik and Simpson, are also excellent and try hard to make their roles more than just the living cliches that the script forces them to be. The technical aspects of the film are also very good, especially the editing by Melanie Oliver and the cinematography by Robbi Ryan whose Red Road proved that she is one to watch. But I can't find myself to recommend this film on those positive aspects alone. In fact noticing them makes viewing it that much more frustrating.

Review: Body of War B+

2008-07-25T10:26:00.002-05:00

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

In order for a film to be effective, it needs to do more than just make a good argument, it needs to be spirited, touching, and the filmmakers need to be unflinching in their efforts to create a picture that the audience will readily embrace. This applies almost entirely to documentaries, especially ones that have opinionated filmmakers behind the lens. Body of War directors Phil Donahue and Ellen Spiro are certainly opinionated filmmakers, as their anti-war, but pro-soldier, message is aggressive enough to rival even opinionated documentary filmmakers like Michael Moore. And, in my opinion, this works well for them. The story of Tomas Young, a soldier who was shot in the spine and was paralyzed from the chest down in the first week of service in Iraq, takes center stage in Body of War and the filmmakers passionately expose the unjust circumstances under which Young and others like him have to suffer for the rest of their lives. One needs look no further than the robotic agreements of 77 senators to go into Iraq to get their blood boiling. These Senators are agreeing to something so off-handedly, disregarding the fact that it may lead to life-long suffering by people like Young and proving once again that Congress makes blind decisions on human lives almost everyday. But that is a discussion which should be left for the next Michael Moore movie. Speaking of Moore, the sole mistake the filmmakers make is that they focus too much attention to Young's anti-war activism, arguably the way Moore would have done. These scenes may be mistaken by Donahue and Spiro as ones that will inspire the audience to take part in protests and other anti-war demonstration, but unfortunately all it does is create a malicious streak that for some viewers who view this type of activism as bad for the troops, will hover over every single frame of the film. Fortunately, it won't for long as the film closes on an emotional note that does not try to tell us to take the initiative, but lets us be captivated by their strength, both physical and emotional, which may actually make us value our lives more, and that is an immense accomplishment.

Review: Bigger Stronger Faster* B

2008-07-23T14:53:00.003-05:00

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

I've never claimed to be an expert at any particular subject matter, even when said subject matter is something that I have historically shown thorough knowledge of. Filmmaker Chris Bell does the same with his film Bigger Stronger Faster*, which explores the influence steroids have on American society, even though he possesses a wealth of knowledge on the subject. Throughout the film Bell, who is himself a former steroid user, acts not only as a giver of information, but also as a pupil of society. He consults with experts and fellow users, not only about the physical and psychological effects of the drugs that can be determined by straight science, but also the moral and ethical consequences that these people have to face. So this film may be the most complete picture of steroid usage ever put in film form as it deals with absolutely all angles and aspects of it. Whether one will embrace this documentary depends on their stance on steroid usage. In many ways, Bell tackles the issue of steroids in a much different way than most media outlets. Bell takes a neutral stance, and wants the viewers to decide for themselves if steroids are for them or not. But in order to do that, he needs to gloss over recent tragedies like Eddie Guerrero's death and Chris Benoit's murderous rage followed by suicide, and he does, instead focusing on steroid users like Hulk Hogan and Arnold Schwarzenegger who are getting older and are still well-off. In fact, for an anti-steroids person like myself, I found it very frustrating that the film did not raise this important fact - that steroids increase chances of heart failure in users almost two-fold. Still, the reason I felt good about this film's existence is that even if Bell elects to show only convenient information, he still prevents himself from propagating a pro=steroid message, and in fact refrains from sending any message at all. I happen to think that that when a documentary simply documents a trend or an event, it ultimately represents the quintessential image of what a documentary should be and should procreate. Bigger Stronger Faster* is that type of documentary and I can't help but recommend it.

Review: Before the Rains B

2008-07-16T17:36:00.003-05:00

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

This film represents the first time Santosh Sivan is a filmmaker-for-hire as all his previous efforts have been written and produced mainly by him. But unlike his other films Before the Rains feels much more like a Hollywood than a Bollywood production. It is set in the year 1937 when anti-British settlement in colonial India became a problem for British investors like Henry Moores (Linus Roache) as it threatens his success in the spice trade. Moores needs to build a road that will speed-up his success in the spice trade before the monsoon sets in, and he is guided by his knowledgeable side-kick T.K. Neelan (Rahul Bose). But instead of worrying about the rains threatening his investments, Moores should have been worrying about something else - the realization of the trusting people around him that he only cares about himself and his desires. When T.K. witnesses Moores's cruelty he realizes that he had been wrong about his hope that the East and the West can live in peace and his whole demeanor changes. The film, written by Cathy Rabin, is forceful enough in making a stance against British occupation even if it focuses on this singular event. But Sivan is more interested in the unsubtle main plot, than the political turmoil which he leaves in the background. This is a double-edged sword, because the film runs the risks of becoming an all too familiar story of the tribulations and disparities of a culture clash, mixed with a forbidden interracial affair (here Moores's partner Sanjani is played brilliantly by the beautiful Nandita Das), with a little 'unlikely hero' theme sprinkled on top. But Sivan is a good-enough storyteller to dodge eye-rolling from his audience, as he handles the twists and turns in the script with a good sense of what works and doesn't. Yes the film is not perfect at this, and suffers from a few scenes that have questionable tone affinity with the rest of the movie. Still, the acting comes as close to perfect as anything in a recent Indian film and it is not due to the fact that it includes Hollywood actors. Yes Linus Roache is very good as the slimy businessman, but it is Rahul Bose and Nandita Das that need mentioning as the ones that create the most unforgettable moments of the film through their realistic depiction of over-the-top emotional scenes. And since Sivan is a cinematographer at heart (and he is the one who frames this film too) the movie is as beautiful as any Ivory/Merchant production ever made. The beauty does a good job of contrasting the ugliness of this adult tale, and Sivan thankfully doesn't resort to pretentious camera-pointing at unrelated inanimate objects. One feels Sivan 'gets' India and the accurate portrayal of the Indian uprising is a side-effect of that knowledge. Many will still frown at the film's unsubtle plot movements and over-the-top scenes, but I found myself caring about an event that happened 70 years ago, so the film did its job.

Halfway Report 2008

2008-07-02T16:48:00.005-05:00

Hi all! As with previous halfway reports, I do not tend to evaluate the reasoning behind each title's placement, because it may end up on my end-of-the-year Top or Bottom 10 and I do not feel like writing about it again. I do want to comment on how much more successful the family movie genre is this year compared to last. The high quality of films like Wall-E and Prince Caspian relieves the sour after-taste of pedestrian 'gross-out' fare like Semi-Pro and Strange Wilderness. On this post my Top 10 is first in ascending order, followed by my bottom 10. #1 is the best/worst. Each film is followed by its rating out of ****. There are no honorable mentions on halfway lists. Enjoy!

Top 10

10. My Blueberry Nights ***
9. Wanted ***
8. Kung Fu Panda ***
7. Iron Man ***
6. Stop-Loss ***
5. Wall-E ***
4. Body of War ***
3. The Happening ***
2. The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian ***1/2
1. The Life Before Her Eyes ***1/2

Bottom 10

10. How She Move *
9. Semi-Pro *
8. Shutter *
7. Witless Protection *
6. Superhero Movie *
5. The Love Guru *
4. Strange Wildenness 1/2
3. Meet the Spartans 1/2
2. In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale 1/2
1. The Hottie and the Nottie none

Review: Be Kind Rewind C+

2008-06-23T23:05:00.002-05:00

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

Auteur Michel Gondry's follow-up to the strangely effective The Science of Sleep is the similarly well-meaning, but less enjoyable Be Kind Rewind. In it Elroy (Danny Glover), a video-store owner will go out of business because store employee Jerry's (Jack Black) brain has become magnetized and has ruined all the films in the video store. To remedy this problem him and his friend Mike (Mos Def) are forced to re-enact movies using only themselves as actors. Gondry's idea of humor is the two protagonists embarrassing themselves while trying to swede many different films, from Rush Hour 2 to 2001: A Space Odyssey and passing them off and renting them out to customers as the real thing. The concept is a novel one that garners a lot of interest, especially from the many various film titles and the frequently funny humor pulled-off by Black and Def. While Gondry has dealt in comedy before, the less said about Block Party, the better. But it is still frustrating to find him still struggling with the different tonal movements in cinema. Like Block Party, Be Kind Rewind is schizophrenic mess that expects the viewer to be able to digest everything thrown at him or her, but what Gondry needs to realize is that this prevents said viewer from actually enjoying what is on-screen. If Gondry wants his surely pain-staking craftsmanship in writing the screenplay and inserting all the different sub-plots and thematic elements, to be recognized, he should have used a set-up longer than 30 seconds for each plot development. The romance between Mike and Alma (Melonie Diaz) is a prime example of the way Gondry's disheveled persona leaks onto the screen. This subplot contains painful dialogue and the romance is lost in all the confusion. But Gondry's direction is unfocused throughout the running time. Near the end when he tries to unabashedly tug at the heartstrings, Gondry's direction remains detached, as if he knows that this third act is so disconnected from the rest of the film in emotional scope it needs not be directed with more focus on characterizations. It is that sense of purposeful mediocrity that really prevents the film from being saved by its amusing recreation of RoboCop.

Review: The Bank Job B

2008-06-22T18:51:00.002-05:00

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

Director Roger Donaldson's follow-up to his touching masterpiece The World's Fastest Indian is the quick, dirty, and therefore appropriately named heist thriller The Bank Job. It is a film based on an infamous heist-gone-wrong in 1971 in which Terry (Jason Statham), a small-time scammer is offered the job of a lifetime by beautiful model Martine Love (the fearless Saffron Burrows), and during its execution, uncovers secrets that involve many British politicians, including the Royal family. Donaldson followers may view this film as a natural entry in the filmmaker's varying and culture-spanning career. For me, The Bank Job is underwhelming compared to Donaldson's previous effort on an emotional and technical level, but his skill behind the camera is evident from the get-go and while I would have liked it if he took his time the way he did with Indian, the film still capitalizes on his great handling of dialogue and characterization. Donaldson, predictably does not include a lot of action scenes in this film, which may disappoint Statham fans, but lends the film more credibility to the point that it actually feels like a faithful retelling of the heist. Too bad the production design does not live up to the great storytelling. The film's unauthentic, too modern, look creates a battle in the minds of the audience as to what they are actually watching - a gritty account of a real event, or simply a fantastical depiction of a bank robbery. Another technical gripe I have with the film is the overbearing and too-serious score by J. Peter Robinson. Robinson scores even the lighter moments with a bravado that takes the viewer away from the moment, rendering it mostly ineffective. One wonders how much of this is due to Roger Donaldson, whose films have frequently been quite serious. Heck, this may be his funniest effort since Cadillac Man 18 years ago. Yet, in keeping with the structure of his last five films, The Bank Job starts out slow and the first 40 minutes are overplotted and dialogue-filled. But, and if you are a Donaldson follower, you will have predicted this, the last act is exciting, violent, and also dialogue-filled. I am reluctant to say that this part is the only one that is worth recommending as the film is interesting throughout, but this depends on the viewer's attention span. And I am happy to see that Donaldson thinks said span is longer than 10 seconds.

Review: Baby Mama C

2008-06-03T15:59:00.002-05:00

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

While I am not a Tina Fey fanboy, I can say that I hoped this film would do her talent and exuberance justice. My hopes were crushed early on in Baby Mama when Fey's character Kate gets an explanation as to why her chance to get pregnant is one in a million (seriously) - she has a "T-shaped uterus." This condition is very rare and is only caused by taking a now illegal drug. This drug was given to women that were already pregnant in the 50s and 60s. So the only way that Michael McCuller's screenplay may be plausible is if Kate is 80+ years old and has already been pregnant about 50 years ago. There has been no record of any woman actually being born with a T-shaped uterus as it is not genetically passed on. I am only telling you this information to expose the fact that this script was probably whipped-up by McCullers in no more than a week as he skipped over any research or fact-checking on the subject he had written it on. But that is because McCullers, appropriately focuses on the jokes in the film, rather than the plot. There are sex jokes, current events jokes, pop culture jokes, political jokes, and unfortunately for the audience, racist jokes. The humor, when appropriate, is undeniably funny and at times worth more than just a chuckle. Tina Fey and co-star Amy Poehler ,who plays the person who carries Kate's baby, are excellent in their roles, if only the script had given them worthy material. Poehler plays the crazy and disorderly surrogate mother and is over-the-top in the best sense of the phrase. One wonders what the film is attempting to portray with her character's unflinching and unstoppable madness and improperness, especially the unveiling of her traitorous actions in the third act of the film. An audience member who is willing to give McCullers more credit than he deserves may see this as an underlying anti-surrogation and/or a pro-adoption message. But McCullers shows that this is not the case in his inane screenplay, and the last ten minutes culminate into a crowd-pleasing moment so empty of any thematic weight or emotion it reminded me of... of... the last mediocre romantic comedy I saw before this one, since all of them seem to be the same these days. If Judd Apatow's films have the upper-hand in the genre, it is mostly because of his undeniable need to create melodrama that falls within his characters' arcs, and is also believable. The believability quotient at the end of Baby Mama is very low, so low in fact that it would have been more believable if the birth scene cut to the scene in the beginning of Rob Zombie's Halloween where Michael Myers is born. But of course it doesn't, and I could only look with dread as McCullers's script finally committed its greatest sin as its characters were leveled off to mere caricatures in service of his middling ways of pleasing the audiences. It is a shame too, because of the wasted good performances and otherwise funny material.

Review: America the Beautiful C

2008-06-02T18:05:00.002-05:00

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

Documentary filmmaker Darryl Roberts explores the danger of America's obsession of beauty in the cleverly-titled America the Beautiful. The filmmaker, and therefore the film argues that our obsession with beauty has endangered young women's well-being and has created an unstoppable and hazardous health risk in that age group. Native Chicagoan Roberts's goal is honorable and a documentary on this subject couldn't have come at a better time. It is a shame than, that the film has as many short-comings as it does. It is a talking head documentary by-and-large and the subject interviewed indulge into such strong cliches that boredom, even if one is interested in any of the themes that are formed by the participants, will quickly and surely set in. None of these so-called "experts" on such subjects as plastic surgery, anorexia, dieting, the modeling industry, and many others, adds any new or significant information that I didn't already know. Yes, statistics we are supposed to gasp at are implemented as frequently as possible, but I think I have heard more intriguing facts on the E! Channel. Another thing Roberts must take the blame for is his concentration on this country alone. Yes, Paris Hilton and Jessica Simpson are culprits that young girls look up to, and are Americans, but it is a statistical fact that most of the 'celebutantes' that my age group aspires to be like are not Americans. One wishes Roberts's self-hating liberalism didn't seep onto the screen at every opportune moment and that he also took a jab at the international community. For it is one hundred percent true that young girls the world-over are affected, inspired and (pun not intended) shaped by their favorite celebrities. Roberts may have dodged the bullet his bias brings to this film if the film was at least edgier in its depictions of the horrors that anorexia, plastic surgery, and diet pills can inflict on their helpless and ignorant users. We are given laughable Zoo-style slow-motion stills of photos of anorexic body parts, that are quickly edited out to make way for Roberts's infatuation with shots of Paris Hilton's dangerously thin body structure. So, in the end we are left with a presumably important documentary, that fails, not because of its subject, but because of the filmmaker documenting it. Isn't that always the case with documentaries that miss the mark?

Review: 88 Minutes C

2008-04-24T22:07:00.002-05:00

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

88 Minutes is not the final nail in the coffin of Al Pacino's career as some people have labeled it, but one thing is true - this is a bad film, and another in a string of bad career moves that have made me approach the great actor's starers with obvious reluctance. Not to mention that I am just getting over the fact that Pacino did Steven Soderbergh the favor of staring in Ocean's Thirteen, and it becomes clear that 88 Minutes couldn't have come at a worse time. Yet, harsher critics of this film have decided to ignore the fact that Al Pacino is the one that almost saves this film and makes long stretches of it watchable. One of those long stretches is the first act as it is the best one in the film, both technically and story-wise. Here, terrible director Jon Avnet uses the most creative camera-work in the film and actually sets up the scenes just right, and adds weight to their existence. For in the beginning of the film is when all the tension of the film is spent. Dr. Jack Gramm (Al Pacino) has helped in the conviction of serial killer Jon Foster (Neal McDonough) who is then sentenced to get the death penalty. Shortly after, a copycat of Foster starts killing in the same way that Foster did, and then Dr. Gramm gets a phone call that he has only 88 minutes to live... By this point in the film 19 minutes have already passed, and while they are not 19 minutes of amazing cinema they are definitely better executed than what happens after that phone call. Avnet has never been good, but he seems to have a greater ability in rendering effective and affecting scenes in the calmer moments of the film. Al PAcino is very helpful here of course as he displays this character in the most emotive way possible. We like Dr. Gramm from the start and the phone call that threatens his life is almost dreaded. It is also dreaded for another reason - it marks the beginning of the film's downfall. The film turns into a game of cat-and-mouse that is so cliched it should be pulled-off with ease by even the least accomplished director. But Jon Avnet either fails because he tries too hard, or because he is the most incompetent filmmaker on this side of the pond. Whichever one of those it is, what transpires on screen is ridiculous and made me pray for at least one more Al Pacino dialogue scene. The 'action' scenes in this thing are so badly shot and put together, that at one point I just decided that what I was looking at was some psycho's feverish fantasy about a method of torture that includes but is not limited to playing the same scene over and over again in one's head until they wished Jon Foster or whoever the serial killer is now would walk out of the screen and kill them in whatever style he wanted. Because I didn't care by the end. Or did I? The last scenes of the film is the other long stretch of watchable cinema that can be found in this film. Granted, Pacino milks them for all of their thematic and emotional weight, but they feel almost like a piece of sublime peacefulness after the mess that just transpired. In the end, the emotional scenes did not work for me as well as they should have. Pacino does his best of course, though one feels that Avnet is undeserving of this effort and in fact this whole movie is undeserving of it. It is that effort in the end, that keeps it from living up to its overtly negative label.

Review: The Band's Visit B

2008-04-14T11:58:00.004-05:00

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

Whether Eran Kolirin's The Band's Visit will work for you, depends on how passionate you are about the Israeli/Arab conflict in the Middle East. It is the story of an Egyptian band that goes to Israel to perform at the inaugural ceremony of a new Arab arts center, but they get lost along the way and get stuck in a city full of Israelites that they think are bitter towards Arabs like themselves. One of the best parts about Kolirin's scrip is the initial set up of the preexistent bitterness between Egyptians and Israelites and at one moment there is a feeling that it may blow over to the demise of both groups. But, like many movies that have come out of that corner of the world, The Band's Visit tells a story of togetherness and acceptance between the two groups. It is a frequently uplifting story that makes the two groups so similar (a good way for Kolirin to prove his point) that at points it is difficult to tell if a character is an Egyptian or an Israelite. So what Kolirin does is, he provides the audience with each mistaken viewpoint of each respective group, and then shatters it in the best way possible - through comedic moments that shine a light on how great an honest interaction between these two groups can be. Therefore, The Band's Visit is an overall pleasant movie-going experience. It is more melancholy than melodramatic, more humane than political, and definitely funnier than any movie on this sensitive subject can be. Kolirin is also a great filmmaker on the technical side, as he doesn't let the low budget of this film limit his stylistic sense and the film is about the best cinematographic debut since Rian Johnson's Brick. One of the things that keeps the film from becoming one of the greatest pieces of cinema of this year is Kolirin's tendency to make things so unrealistic that sometimes I was not able to feel the appropriate longing for it all to be true, but I just wanted the film to be more grounded. Kolirin's goal is a noble one and I can safely say that he accomplishes it, but when the film strays into fantasy, and slow-moving fantasy at that, I found myself being taken out of the experience and having to force myself back in it. Granted, these moments are few and far between, and by the end, all I could say was that I had just experienced one of the most rewarding, hopeful, and engrossing films of the year. It is essential viewing for all cultures. We can all learn a lesson from these, unfortunately fictional characters.

Review: 21 C+

2008-04-02T23:39:00.004-05:00

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

The same people who are embracing 21's forced lavishness and phony sense of trend-setting, are also the ones who snubbed Curtis Hanson's Lucky You - a film that at least earned its place in the poker film genre, without the need to seem like the hippest thing to come out of Vegas since Ocean's Thirteen. Robert Luketic's whole filmography appeals to the crowd that thinks a scene like Sam carrying Frodo up Mount Doom is too melodramatic and heavy-handed, but find the final speech in Legally Blonde an inspiring moment that we should all learn from. 21 is similar in its structure, relying on a final scene that is supposed to be somehow inspirational, but no other previous scenes hold the same emotional weight which shows Luketic's inability to build-up to moments like that thematically. At the end when main character Ben (Jim Sturgess) redeems himself and is rewarded for it, I felt like I was watching a repeat of Luketic's superior Kate Bosworth starer Win a Date with Tad Hamilton! But unlike Hamilton, the characters in 21 are unlikeable and undeserving assholes whose cockiness is so repulsive that by the end I hoped any one of them would accidentally drown in the Bellaggio's lake. Of course Luketic wallows in the 'coolness' of these characters, tries his best (and fails) to make them the epitome of the Vegas lifestyle, and ultimately gets lost in a barrage of staged scenes of faux-importance that are harder to sit through than Jane Fonda's over-reacting in Monster-In-Law. Still, Luketic doesn't get everything wrong, and surprisingly, displays a good eye for the esthetic as Las Vegas is rendered in a way that Steven Soderbergh can only dream of executing. Still, the same thing can be said about Curtis Hanson, and actually even more so, because Hanson portrayed a Las Vegas that is much closer to what it is in reality - down to the seediness of its forgotten corners. In 21, Vegas is the slick, safe, and tranquil place that it's not, but Luketic is not a rookie at envisioning ideal environments that present a fantasy world the audience will never be a part of. The acting in the film is also good, but with a cast like this, a blunder here would have been unforgivable. One wonders what Kevin Spacey and Laurence Fishburne thought when they saw the script being handed to them - it is an empty farce, a one-trick pony that delights only in the moments when the characters are not acting in ways that make me fear that one of our top schools is filled with imbicels. They probably hoped they would come out unscathed while also collecting their respective paychecks. Now that the film has become a box office success, it looks like their plan worked.

Review: 10,000 B.C. B

2008-03-26T19:40:00.002-05:00

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

Roland Emmerich's best film since his 1998 destruction epic Godzilla, 10,000 B.C. is a film of unforgettable imagery, fearless filmmaking, and finally - a storyline that, while not believable by any means, is as good as anything Emmerich has worked on since the tedious, but overly-informative war epic The Patriot. While watching 10,000 B.C. I knew that Emmerich wasn't a better filmmaker, but something told me that this Emmerich was finally ready to ground his characters and not parade their personal issues around with directorial grand-standing the likes of which was found in both The Day After Tomorrow and Universal Soldier. Still, every scene, no matter what its scale, is rendered in a way that makes it seem important - whether it be through the over-produced score by Harald Kloser and Thomas Wander, or the overly-indulgent cinematography by frequent Emmerich collaborator Ueli Steiger. This feeling of importance is a trick that Emmerich frequently uses in his films to try to sell them to the audience. In empty motion pictures like The Day After Tomorrow this does not work, but in 10,000 B.C. there is a deeper struggle that these characters go through together that eventually leads them to an epic struggle, during which Emmerich finally made me care.

The reason I cared about the characters in Godzilla is because I understood them, even if I didn't fully understand their plight or their experiences. I didn't understand them because they were so unrealistic and unfathomable, but as long as the characters contained some sort of humanity I was absolutely fine with the sheer ridiculousness of the action on screen. I feel the same way about 10,000 B.C. as the screenplay sets up the romance, which almost starts out as an innocent friendship, between main characters D'Leh and Evolet in a way that made me want them to be together, almost as much as I wanted Jaguar Paw to succeed in Apocalypto. So I did believe in these characters and their other-worldly adventure going against a God-like Egyptian Pharaoh whose slaves are people he doesn't know, but views as his own kin.

Cynics have labeled this film as racist, since the leader of the rebellion against the Pharaoh, D'Leh is white, and the people he leads are unmistakably people of color. These cynics are the same ones who bat their eye when Emmerich displays the reliance D'Leh has on Nakudu - his African friend and tribe leader who is definitely much more intelligent than D'Leh is and if it isn't for this character, D'Leh would have never even gotten to Egypt. Emmerih solidifies this film is not racist at the end when he shows Nakudu and D'Leh embrace as a sign of their ever-lasting friendship and devotion. The cynics are the ones that color these characters in broad strokes. Well, when I see a black person in a film I don't automatically become suspicious of his role being one of a servant or the like, I view him or her as just another character, and it is my belief that Emmerich also believes in this type of equality and that belief can readily be seen in this film.

The technical qualities of this film are above par, and the special effects are breathtaking, especially the building of the pyramids. The God-like Pharaoh is instantly revolting and Emmerich is successful at making the audience cheer for the success of his slaves' revolution. It is the first time I've felt emotion during an Emmerich film since Godzilla's death (shot by Emmerich in manipulative, but tried-and-true, slow motion) and it signals a filmmaker who has finally taken a step in the right direction. Indeed, it is more than just a little rough around the edges, but 10,000 B.C. is entertainment on a level that can be labeled as totally recommendable.

Review: 27 Dresses C+

2008-03-19T20:21:00.003-05:00

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

Katherine Heigl is always the bridesmaid, never the bride in director/dance choreographer Anne Fletcher's follow-up to her 2006 hit Step Up. While Fletcher has frequently she is the most accomplished choreographer working in Hollywood today, with 27 Dresses she demonstrates that the same can not be said about her directing. The blandness of this drab film is only matched by the predictability of the screenplay, penned by Aline Brosch McKenna (The Devil Wears Prada) - two points that make the fact that this film is not sleep-inducing an almost unbelievable surprise. I think Fletcher owes any creative success this film may contain to her cast - namely Katherine Heigl, James Marsden and the always wonderful Judy Greer - and their undeniable comedic timing. In fact, a lot of these lines would not have worked at all if it wasn't for these actors' comedic timing, that I am reluctant to give credit to Fletcher for contributing to, especially after seeing the stilted figures that were the characters in Step Up. 27 Dresses tells of the efforts of Jane to support her sister Tess (Malin Ackerman) who is marrying Kevin (James Marsden) the man Jane secretly loves. This storyline has seen many incarnations, many of them bad, and this one too, is one that is more bad than good. The reason the film does not even work as a chick flick, is because the dramatic pay-off that follows all of the mostly average comedy is unsatisfying in the way it was written on the page, and ultimately, the way it comes off on the screen. One of the things that makes it unsatisfying is its need to satisfy and tidy things up for the audience in a predictable fashion. But is it worth it for the audience to watch the past 90 minutes only to be treated to 15 minutes of unsubstantial romantic events that resemble chase scenes with fast cuts and unexplained developments that are just perfect for the ADD-infused crowd Fletcher is hoping the audience is made up of. Cut to the last scene of the film - a scene that has defined the romantic comedy genre climaxes for the past decade. A scene that is so unrealistic in its disregard for the way humans really feel, the way they really love, and the way they really act that at the end I thought I had just seen a remake of Step Up without the dancing. Not Recommended.

Review: 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days B

2008-03-18T18:25:00.003-05:00

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

Cristian Mingiu's story of utter desperation and moral deprivation is somewhat appropriately set in 1980's Romania - a time and place known for Communistic oppression and widespread poverty. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days is a film lacking even a single moment of hope or optimism, instead choosing to wallow in the endless dread faced by the film's two heroines. They are college students Otilia (the beautiful Anamaria Marinca) and Gabita (Laura Vasiliu) who have to use everything in their power and go to great lengths to get a late-term abortion for Gabita. In a country where all forms of abortion are illegal, this is even more difficult then either one of them could ever imagine. Mingiu raises many questions that he refuses to answer, but those are the ones that are specifically related to the main storyline. The accurate portrayal of Communist Romania lets the audience in on the reality of the situation for everyone who had to endure this tyrannical regime. Yet, I am not prepared to say that Mingiu wants us to regard the two women's story only as a plot device that works toward his anti-suppression message. Considering either one or both of them are on screen throughout most of the film's running length, their unique story is really what vies for the audience's attention and empathy, and that refusal from Mingiu to make this yet another film with an unsubtly-portrayed political message is what really puts it above the rest of the pack. But the fact that this film is so personal, also brings attention to the controversial topic of abortion that is the film's main thematic element. To that end, this is not an anti-abortion film, though to say that it is pro-abortion would be like saying 10,000 B.C. is for the killing of animals for food. Mingiu's imagery related to abortion is uncomfortable to the point that it makes it seem like a terrible event that should never have to be endured or performed, yet the trials that these two women go through in order to get it are so devastating and depressing one begins viewing the act of abortion as their much-needed salvation. Mingiu's film includes many moments and camera angles that are familiar enough to indicate he is an avid fan of Hollywood cinema, and homages it, maybe without realizing it, throughout his film. His camera-work is also frustratingly reminiscent of Gus Van Sant's long takes, but at least Mingiu's use of inanimate objects is not as thought-provokingly pedestrian and nowhere near as obvious. Mingiu has created a film that is endlessly depressing, but strangely captivating and seems to have upstaged a lot of his Hollywood idols with the film's superb technical quality, superb direction of actors, and detailed screenplay. Many will find his film unbearable and not worth taking the emotional toll for, but I recommend it without reservations - this is a filmmaker to watch who will hopefully have a long career ahead of him.

Top 10 Hottest Women!

2008-02-11T22:16:00.015-06:00

Honorable Mentions (alphabetical last name): Christina Aguilera, Monica Belluci, Rosario Dawson, Keira Knightley, and Charlize Theron

Evan Rachel Wood may eternally be known as the girl with the tongue ring on the poster of Thirteen, but for me, she is so much more. Her classic beauty is something that she exerts on the red carpet and on the big screen. Interestingly she doesn't sell herself as 'the new hot thing' in Hollywood and that subdued personality is very attractive. She almost feels like a hidden gem waiting to be discovered. The best part about it all is that she hasn't gone the Lindsay Lohan route, and stays clean (unless you count dating Marilyn Manson as something that damages a girl's cleanliness). Wood's body is nearly perfect, but her face is her best asset. Check her out.

Movie(s) she is hottest in: Thirteen, Down in the Valley, and Across the Universe

Upcoming Movies: Life Before Her Eyes

Milla Jovovich is not only extremely hot, she is also an entrepreneur. A model turned singer turned actress, Milla is every European guy's dream, at least every straight one. She has become an international brand and her success is made more enjoyable by her "I don't give a crap!" attitude. If you do a Google image search of Milla you will be hard-pressed to find a non-nude picture of her as she is historically known for loving to show off her body at any chance she is given. Said body can only be dreamed of; although her breasts are admittedly small, I am betting that she will rock my world and I won't ever look at another woman ever again. Too bad she won't. Too bad.

Movie(s) she's hottest in: Resident Evil and Ultraviolet

Upcoming Movies: Azazel

Jessica Biel's body is still something I can't get around. It is the only body that I haven't heard any complaints about from men or women that I have asked. Her face is also a perfect 10. Jessica seems like one of those girls you can feel safe about taking home to your parents since she has a great personality. She also seems a bit shy, especially in interviews, which is something I do find attractive. What girl that looks like her is shy? Jessica's acting is also getting better and better with each film and I can see her becoming a leading lady in the future. Justin Timberlake is a lucky guy.

Movie(s) she is hottest in: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, London and I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry

Upcoming Movies: Powder Blue and Easy Virtue

Leelee Sobieski's beauty is simply too much for me to be mad at her about participating in two terrible movies in a row. Leelee's acting is amazing and she always brings something to her characters that defies expectations. Her unexpected choices in small films (just look at her imdb page) are refreshing and fearless and she does it all without caring about what people will think about her. She never searches for publicity and wants to advance her career only through acting. Leelee is a hottie we can all respect. While I think the above picture is good enough to encapsulate her beauty, why not go into it a little more. The first thing that one notices about her is her uncompromising jaw-line, then her eyes, and finally her body. All of the above are simply perfect.

Movie(s) she is hottest in: Joy Ride, The Glass House, and L' Idole

Upcoming Movies: 88 Minutes and Night Train

Slama Hayek is a natural beauty with a fun outlook on life and passable acting skills. But who cares about her acting? She is one of those girls that doesn't believe in being freakishly thin and her curves are addicting to look at. She has a hot friend in Penelope Cruz and that only makes the fantasies better. An Oscar nominated actress, Hayek is happy about appearing in less prestigious roles too (aka ones that show-off her 'assets'). The fact that she is so willing to show-off her body is something I thank God for every day and I hope it continues after she gives birth. No need to stop now.

Movie(s) she is hottest in: Frida, Ask the Dust, and Wild Wild West

Upcoming Movies: South of the Border and Keep Coming Back

Avril Lavigne redefines the word 'sexy' every chance she gets. For some reason her badass attitude is not a turn-off for me, though it is for many people. But what can't be denied about her is her way of breaking hotness barriers. She is a wife now, and because of that she is even further out of reach for me than before, putting her in the 'impossible' arena. But I can still fantasize sometimes. One of the best fantasies about her is the one about her hidden innocence. Something about the thought that she only does her badass thing for her image is almost reassuring. Avril is well-deserving of her spot on this list.

The maddeningly sexy Scarlett Johansson deserves all the praise she has got recently for her sexiness. The funniest thing, and most refreshing thing about her is that she is imperfect. But we like people for their imperfections. What is perfect are her totally natural breasts. Yet, I am not most attracted to that part of her, I like just about every part of her, including her stunning face which is reminiscent of the beauties of the 60's and 70's. Also her attitude about sex is interesting. She has publicly disdained monogamy, though she is young so it is probably is just for the time being. Also she lets guys touch her breasts on the red carpet of the Golden Globes and I get to watch!

Movie(s) she is hottest in: A Love Song for Bobby Long. The Island, and Match Point

Upcoming Movies: The Other Boleyn Girl and Vicky Christina Barcelona

Angelina Jolie is one of only 2 women on this list to have won an Oscar, and it is amazing that God would give so much to a single person. Not only is her face beautiful, but she has one of the better bodies in Hollywood, if not the best. And lets not forget how good of an actress she is. Yes, she has actual sex in sex scenes in films but, I won't be the one to stop her. She also does a lot for the world as she donates a lot to poverty and makes the world aware of the hardships of the world. Now that she is a mother she has stated that she would be more reluctant to do nude scenes in the future, but we already have plenty to enjoy from before she got married. Angelina can be used as an example of how to live your life if you are as successful as her.

Movie(s) she's hottest in: Original Sin, Taking Lives, Gia and Beowulf

Upcoming Movies: Kung Fu Panda, Wanted and The Changeling

A personal favorite of mine, Liv Tyler is the most underrated beauty in Hollywood. She is simply sweet and beautiful and pretty and all those words a guy would use to describe the girl her really loves. Liv Tyler also seems like a good person to hang out with - her enormous positivity can be seen both in her interviews and even on screen. And beneath that good girl persona there is also a woman that can have a little fun too. Her eyes are amazing and heartbrakingly beautiful. This is a girl who can't be looked away from when she is on screen. Her commanding presence created by her beauty and her acting skill. Also she seems to make good choices as far as films are concerned. I think if you're reading this and don't trust me on how stunning she can be, watch some of her films. You'll be amazed.

Movie's she's hottest in: Stealing Beauty, The Lord of the Rings and That Thing You Do!

Upcoming Movies: The Strangers and The Incredible Hulk

Jennifer Connelly can turn gay guys straight and straight women to lesbianism, or at least bi-sexuality. One of my goals in life is to meet her, just say hello. I'm not a stalker or anything. But just one time, if I could meet her just one time and look into the most beautiful eyes in the world, i would give anything. If you've ever seen her in a movie, I'm betting you still remember her. She is an Oscar-winning actress and in my opinion is also THE best actress currently working in Hollywood, and of course the most beautiful. Her beauty is striking in a way that transcends normality. When she is onscreen, she takes my breath away no matter what she is doing. She will take yours away too. I guarantee it.

Movie(s) she is hottest in: The Hot Spot, Inventing the Abbots, Career Opportunities, Waking the Dead, Little Children, House of Sand and Fog, Hulk, and Dark Water

Upcoming Movies: He's Just Not That Into You and The Day the Earth Stood Still

"Stuff On My Mind" Part 4: Golden Globes Predictions

2008-01-10T20:54:00.000-06:00

Now that the Golden Globes ceremony has been officially canceled, the only thing we can look forward to this year is the clip montage playing before the "news conference", if it is approved by the writers of course. There is no Red Carpet, no speeches, no hosts, no celebrities, absolutely nothing. But this doesn't mean that the awards won't be given out - they have to be and they will be. Here are my predictions for this year's Golden Globes (I am only doing the film nominees, because TV sucks. If you don't believe me the new episode of "Supernatural" is playing right now and if you check it out, you will agree with me completely.):

Best Motion Picture Drama:

American Gangster
Atonement (should win)
Eastern Promises
The Great Debaters
Michael Clayton
No Country for Old Men (will win)
There Will Be Blood

A record high of eight nominees for this category signals Hollywood's desperation to sell the 'high quality' of current cinema in a false "we couldn't just pick five' way. This tactic would be easier to forgive if clunkers like Eastern Promises and Michael Clayton were not nominated, but here they are. They replace better films like Gone Baby Gone and Into the Wild just to name a couple, though I could name 50+ films that I enjoyed more than the latest, unfortunately successful attempt at copying Steven Soderbergh's comatose filmmaking style, and David Cronenberg's penis-wagging history lesson on the Russian mob. Speaking of sex organs, it may be too risky for the HFPA to pick Keira Knightley's wet cunt over the other nominees' political correctness - an unfortunate reveal of their need to keep sexism high (note their embrace of the woman-lacking There Will Be Blood) and objectivity low. In the end, The Coens' compelling No Country for Old Men will win, if only because choosing between two Denzel Washington movies of about equal quality may prove too tall an order even for them.

Best Motion Picture Musical/Comedy:

Across the Universe
Charlie Wilson's War
Hairspray
Juno (will win)
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (should win)

Surprisingly, the nominees in this category are pretty on par this year (though not putting I'm Not There in this list shows a confusion among voters about which genre it falls into), with the inclusion of Across the Universe being the most pleasant surprise. I am also happy that Charlie Wilson's War has been recognized as what it truly is - a comedy with a dramatic pay-off much stronger than anyone could have imagined. While Juno rubbed me the wrong way by copying last year's Little Miss Sunshine's seemingly innocent quirk, it is worthy of an inclusion on the list, but not a win. The win should be garnered by one of the musicals, preferably the bloody Sweeney Todd - Tim Burton's redemption for the bad musical numbers in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, or Across the Universe - Julie Taymor's fearless and fun tribute to Beatle-mania. But unfortunately, Hairspray is the musical front-runner and Juno's biggest competition, and as much as I enjoyed the film -I gave it a solid three stars - it seems too annoying and filled with too many moments that could have been cut and pasted from the tepid High School Musical.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Drama

George Clooney for Michael Clayton
Daniel Day-Lewis for There Will Be Blood (should win) (will win)
James McAvoy for Atonement
Viggo Mortensen for Eastern Promises
Denzel Washington for American Gangster

The only reason George Clooney keeps being nominated year after year is because the award show needs to have an exciting speech somewhere, but now that there is no show, I am sure voters want to reconsider the nomination for his straight-talking lawyer and replace it with Tommy Lee Jones' confused father from In the Valley of Elah. While Viggo Mortensen's accent is probably the best part of Eastern Promises he has done better in the past (Lord of the Rings) without being nominated. It is almost a shame that he is getting more buzz for being in an average Cronenberg film, rather than a great one like A History of Violence. But this is where the shame ends. James McAvoy stood out among all the beauty of Atonement, and Denzel Washington carried American Gangster from first scene to last without one bad move. But Daniel Day-Lewis' indescribable performance in There Will Be Blood is the outright winner here. Too much has already been said about the best acting performance of the year, and I won't repeat it here. I can only say that it is a performance that will be remembered, at least by me, with some of the all-time greats. Day-Lewis it is.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Drama

Cate Blanchett for Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Julie Christie for Away From Her (should win) (will win)
Jodie Foster for The Brave One
Angelina Jolie for A Mighty Heart
Keira Knightley for Atonement

The whole of Away From Her as a moment of good acting followed by another moment of good acting. The voters will recognize this, but they will also consider the nominees other than Julie Christie as well, except for Jodie Foster who's turn in The Brave One reminded me too much of J-Lo's turn in the even-worse Enough. Cate Blanchett's Elizabeth is almost as over-the-top as Day-Lewis' Plainview, though the ugly make-up the beautiful Blanchett is forced to wear throughout the film is a tragedy as great as the Spanish war itself. What, you think lives weren't lost making that thing? Angelina Jolis is good in A Mighty Heart, maybe even better than good, and the voters will like the timeliness of the film, but Jolie's performance, like most of them contains acting flaws that may give the upper hand to one of the perfectionists in this category. Keira Knightley also delivers a flawed performance in Atonement, but her piercing look and the fact that she is not playing an 'innocent girl' should garner some attention.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy

Johnny Depp for Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Ryan Gosling for Lars and the Real Girl
Tom Hanks for Chalrie Wilson's War (will win)
Philip Seymour Hoffman for The Savages (should win)
John C. Reilly for Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story

Is it just me or was Ryan Gosling's performance what actually kept Lars and the Real Girl from being more emotionally effective? It was just too quirky for me to take it seriously, and it is the only place where the film goes wrong, but it is a big place. And while John C. Reilly is ok as an impersonator of a fake-is person, he has definitely been in better roles and if he wins this, what am I talking about he won't win this. Not when he is going up against the likes of Tom Hanks and Johnny Depp, not to mention recent Oscar winner Philip Seymour Hoffman. From those three front-runners the favorite of mine is Hoffman, for his equally funny and self-demeaning performance in The Savages. Yet something tells me that Tom Hanks will beat both Hoffman's performance and Johnny Depp's over-played turn in Sweeney Todd and go for the safe choice of Tom Hanks. Giving Tom Hanks awards is a popular thing after all, so why stop now?

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy

Amy Adams for Enchanted
Nikky Blonsky for Hairspray
Helena Bonham Carter for Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Marion Cotillard for La Vie en Rose (should win)
Ellen Page for Juno (will win)

While Nikky Blonsky has been getting all the hype lately, I think Ellen Page will beat her at the Golden Globes - a move that will let the show get as far as possible away from the Hairspray silliness. Wait, what am I talking about - there won't be a show! Does that mean that if Helena Bonham Carter wins for the performance by her magnificent breasts, the voters won't be criticized for being demeaning to women? Possibly. Or does that mean that if they pick Amy Adams' cheeky performance they won't be criticized for rewarding the Disney-machine? Possibly. Of course, they might just pull a surprise on us an award the deserving Marion Cotillard for her performance as Edith Piaf. She is the most deserving here, because her performance is the most demanding and she definitely plays the most complex character, and she plays Piaf well.

Best Performance By an Actor in A Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

Casey Affleck for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Javier Bardem for No Country for Old Men (will win)
Phillip Seymour Hoffman for Charlie Wilson's War (should win)
John Travolta for Hairspray
Tom Wikinson for Michael Clayton

Wilkinson's performance in Michael Clayton may be the worst performance to be nominated in this category for quiet some time. It is less believable than Optimus Prime's turn in Transformers, and prime just happens to be a robot. not to mention the whole kinda-animated cast of Beowulf is at least 20 times better than him. But when it comes down to nominating long-time actors like Wilkinson, the voters have shown to not actually have them win the award, and this also seems to be the case. Everyone else on the list, except for Hoffman, doesn't really have much of an award-winning history. By now it is clear that Bardem will win, though he should have won a few years a go for his stunner of a performance in The Sea Inside. I am not going to argue - it is a great performance, but the other two that Bardem had in 2007 were the leading roles in Goya's Ghosts and Love in the Time Of Cholera. Both of them are terrible performances that seemingly bring the films' quality down a couple of notches. As far as Travolta is concerned, I can't understand how a performance that was played just in good fun by him could even be considered to be nominated. Travolta is a good actor, but he is deservingly the underdog here.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

Cate Blanchett for I'm Not There
Julia Roberts for Chralie Wilson's War
Saorise Ronan for Atonement (should win)
Amy Ryan for Gone Baby Gone (will win)
Tilda Swinton for Michael Clayton

This is essentially a race between Amy Ryan and Cate Blanchett with no clear favorite. Ryan's performance, along with Swinton's, is the least showy of the nominees, but all the award shows have taken a liking to it, and so have I. But Blanchett is so good playing a man (Bob Dylan) in I'm Not There, that one wonders why she has not been winning more. It is a groundbreaking performance, but the argument always is, aren't all her performances groundbreaking? While Julia Roberts is a practical shoo-in for a nomination when she takes part in a Mike Nichols movie, she is the least likely to win here, if you don't count my personal favorite Soarise Ronan. Ronan's performance is so addictingly good that sometimes I wished there were more flashbacks to her later in the film.

Best Director - Motion Picture

Tim Burton for Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Ethan Coen and Joel Coen for No Country for Old Men (will win)
Julian Schnabel for The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Ridley Scott for American Gangster
Joe Wright for Atonement (should win)

The best part of the great No Country for Old Men is definitely the signature direction of the Coen Brothers. they haven't made a bad film in my opinion, and this latest quickly makes you realize why - they have a style that is incomparable to anyone else's - something that not even Spielberg and fellow nominee Ridley Scott can claim. But the competitors here are so strong that the Coens may be my third or fourth choice but they are definitely behind Julian Schnabel and Joe Wright. Both Schanbel and Wright have gone above and beyond preset high expectations and both have infused their films with technical perfection and emotional resonance of equal weights. And while I admit that what Tim Burton does with Sweeney Todd is unbelievably great, Wright does better, because of his ability to render two different worlds and merge them so perfectly. Burton is stuck in the dark and edgy Tim Burton world - something that is becoming too easy for him.

Best Screenplay - Motion Picture

Atonement: Christopher Hampton
Charlie Wilson's War: Aaron Sorkin
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly: Ronald Harwood (should win)
Juno: Diablo Cody (will win)
No Country for Old Men: Joel Coen and Ethan Coen

I think the WGA is mad at the Globes because there is only one screenplay category. But I think this allows more variety in the list. For instance when putting two very different films like Juno and No Country for Old Men head-to-head how can you decide who should win? Easily - pick No Country for Old Men. It will not win because many have viewed the film's ending as a cop-out or as incomplete, but I think the script won over me with that very ending. We learn more about the characters in the last minutes of the film, then we do throughout the whole of Charlie Wilson's War. One hopes that the voters had a brain fart when they picked Charlie Wilson's War over There Will Be Blood, but this smells like one of those attempts to have dramas and comedies represented equally. It is a shame that There Will Be Blood is not here simply because of process of elimination. While I think Atonement is a better film, Ronald Harwood's script for The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is about as screenwriting got in 2007. It balances character actions and emotive concepts well, and some of the scenes are so well-written, they make the stuff in Diablo Cody's Juno seem like minuscule ineffective prose.

Best Original Song - Motion Picture

Enchanted - "That's How You Know"
Grace is Gone - "Grace Is Gone" (should win)
Into the Wild - "Guaranteed"
Love in the Time of Cholera - "Despedida"
Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story - "Walk Hard" (will win)

It is Eddie Vedder vs. Clint Eastwood, with John C. Reilly coming out on top. Forgive me for preferring the sad string lyrics of "Grace Is Gone", but I am a sad music freak, and when the other contenders range from Disney pop ("That's Hoy You Know") to old-time rock n' roll ("Guaranteed"), how can I not go for the undermined masterpiece that is "Grace is Gone"?

Best Original Score - Motion Picture

Atonement - Dario Marinaelli (should win) (will win)
Eastern Promises - Howard Shore
Grace Is Gone - Clint Eastwood
Into The Wild - Michale Brook, Kaki King, Eddie Vedder
The Kite Runner - Alberto Iglesias

Another year, another Howard Shore nomination. Not that that's a bad thing, but his score for Eastern Promises, is not that good. The nomination for Into the Wild is a simple lame attempt to look cool by nominating Eddie Vedder. The score is good, but not worthy of this list. And as far as that out-of-left field nomination for composer Clint Eastwood, the joke's on us. We are left to ponder how he was nominated when Mark Isham was looked over for the 8 great scores that he did in 2007. The only worth scores here are Marianelli's driving Atonement and Iglesas' touching The Kite Runner. As far as creativity is concerned both scores benefit, with the advantage going to Marianelli for his use of unconventional instruments and smoother change of pace in the score.

Best Animated Film

Bee Movie
Ratatouille (will win)
The Simpsons Movie (should win)

I guess they forgot Beowulf. Usually I like to use this category to talk about the stupidity of these voters and their unreasonable need to make this category exclusive for kiddie movies. Well for a couple years now, the best animated films have been adult-oriented (A Scanner Darkly, Beowulf) but the voters feel more comfortable handing out these awards to Pixar or DreamWorks productions that are relatively underwhelming compared to others. While the inclusion of The Simpson Movie is a pleasant surpirise, to cancel it out there is the Seinfeld-lite Bee Movie, one of the least enjoyable animated films of the year, and I saw Arthur and the Invisibles. The statuette will again go to Pixar for the umpteenth time, for a film that while better than most Pixar films, still leaves a bad taste in your mouth, and that isn't because it mostly consists of rats eating garbage.

Best Foreign Language Film

4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (should win) (will win)
The Kite Runner
Lust, Caution
Persepolis

While I haven't seen Persepolis I am going to take a wild guess and say that an animated movie that wasn't nominated in the animated movie category will not win in a more prestigious category. Ang Lee's flawed Lust, Caution is also not going to win, because of the little buzz its been gathering at the awards circuit. Also, it isn't Lee's best work, though it might be his raciest. The Kite Runner has also been met with underwhelming praise, though it deserves much better than that. So it is down between an abortion drama that I haven't seen and one of the best movies of the year. Bith have been labeled as favorites, in fact people are saying that 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days might pull off an upset, but I think it will strike many people as wrong not to reward Julian Schnabel for making a film containing some of the most unforgettable imagery in a recent motion picture.

Well this is it for me. I hope you enjoyed it. I look forward to my Oscar Predictions!

- Stefan Vlahov

TC Tribute #9: The Color of Money (1986)

2008-01-08T22:10:00.000-06:00

RATING:

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

Many people believe The Color of Money is Martin Scorsese's worst film. These individuals could be suffering from one of two conditions - they like their films to be totally conventional in the way they are told, or they haven't seen Scorsese's 1999 embarrassment Bringing Out the Dead. Either way, this isn't Scorsese's worst film - it is in fact a very good one, albeit one that demands a bit more attention in order to become enjoyable. Based on the novel by Walter Tevis, the film is a Casino-like exploration of pool hustling and a study of a relationship between a fading star and an up-and-coming rookie.

In may ways this is right up Scorsese's alley, as it is a drama centered around a dangerous or unlawful practice. Many people often disapprove of Scorsese's well-researched manner in showing the way a plot device in the film works, in this case pool hustling, but this practice is so rare that I think it is a unique signature to have as a director. In fact, Scorsese has always seemed to me like he is less interested in filmmaking and more interested in the main practical thing that his film centers around. As if the film itself sprung up from that interest. Maybe that is why biopics like The Aviator work out so well. But this shouldn't be surprising, considering he is a documentary filmmaker at heart.

The Color of Money tells the story of an aging professional pool hustler Fast Eddie (Paul Newman) who spots a young pool player Vincent (Tom Cruise) schooling his opponent like he was performing some habitual exercise. Seeing this and realizing he is past his prime, Eddie decides to teach this skilled young man the art of pool hustling, and take a percentage of his winnings. But when Vincent's showboating starts losing him money, the two clash in a way that makes them realize things about life and themselves that they didn't know before, and lets Eddie have a final deserved triumph.

If this sounds too much like Paul Newman's earlier film The Hustler it's no accident. The Color of Money was originally sold as an unofficial sequel to the famous 1961 film, and in many ways it plays in the same way. And just like Robert Rossen, Martin Scorsese decides to include a distracting beauty into the mix in this case played by the stunning Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, who was just coming off a great supporting role in Scarface. To be honest, Scorsese may be the least sexist male director that has ever lived. He recognizes the importance that a female character may play in what can be categorized as a more male-centric practice - like pool hustling for example. The woman in this film is as ruthless as any male in the film, and the character is probably the most memorable.

But the only way one can get all of this across is with good acting. Paul Newman is excellent in his Oscar-winning role. His performance is so nuanced and takes so many surprising turns that it may very well be his best, though I like his more recent work more than his work in the 80's. Tom Cruise is also excellent, refusing to be overshadowed by Newman's amazing turn. Cruise has played this role before though, but that shouldn't take anything away from his performance here, which is both enjoyable and infuriating - in the best sense of the word. Mastrantonio plays evil very well, and she is good at the type of seductiveness that seemingly never fails. i don't care what anyone says, she is one of the hottest actresses whose prime was in the 80's. Impressive supporting roles by John Turturo and Bill Cobbs are like frosting on the cake. Scorsese is definitely a great actor's director.

Technically, though, is where Scorsese's work can really be distinguished. His camera during the pool playing scenes is as exciting as most of the work he has done during his lifetime. It swings from side to side. up and down and around, as Scorsese makes watching two people play billiards, as interesting as it can get. The camera angles by expert cinematographer Michael Ballhaus are risky, but totally satisfying. The editing by long-time Scorsese collaborator Thema Scoonmaker is a bit problematic, because as always it does not flow the way it is supposed to. But this is what this thee-time Oscar winner is known for. There is almost no score to speak of in this film - a big negative, and something that is way too common in 80's films. Also Scorsese films sparingly use score for emotional undertone - a choice that I have never agreed with. But technically, the film is solid.

I do recommend The Color of Money. It is a rare opportunity to see so much talent associated with a single film so whenever it comes along, it is a must see. Paul Newman fans probably have this in their DVD collection already, but many Cruise and Scorsese fans have disregarded the film as a low point for both of them, but if you give this film a try, and let it grow on you, you will find much more than what is seemingly on the surface - just like most Scorsese films. So in case you want an 80's film that is technically superior to most, so much so that it doesn't seem like an 80's film, I recommend that you go out and get this now. Recommended.

2008 List

2008-01-08T12:13:00.015-06:00

This is an archive of all the 2008 releases I have seen that will be constantly updated. You can find a link on the right side of the blog under features. Thanks.

**** A to A+ (10)

***1/2 A- (9)

*** B to B+ (7 - 8)

4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days
10,000 B.C.
The Band's Visit
The Bank Job
Before the Rains
Bigger Stronger Faster*
Body of War

**1/2 C+ to B- (6)

21
27 Dresses
Be Kind Rewind

** C (5)

88 Minutes
America the Beautiful
Baby Mama
Brick Lane

*1/2 D+ to C- (4)

First Sunday
One Missed Call

* D (2 - 3)

1/2 D- (1)

In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale

None F (0)

Tribute #8: Top Gun (1986)

2008-01-05T22:18:00.000-06:00

RATING:

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

The recent backlash against Top Gun, suspiciously coincides with the backlash against Tom Cruise in general. What used to be Cruise's most popular and most quoted film, has now been labeled as a overrated, empty B-movie schlock that should not be taken seriously. But the truth is that Top Gun may be the best movie of its kind, and considering the competition, that is saying a lot. An important thing to remember about Top Gun is its authenticity - the depiction of life in a naval school is accurate (this is proven if you do your research), and while the film may go over-the-top with the fighting scenes, who's to say what is on screen doesn't correspond to reality? Also Top Gun has real drama. The film could have done away with any and all character development (like 2005's Stealth did) and become video game-like, but director Tony Scott knows that close ties between pilots in an academy are an essential part of life. He illustrates the relationships between them as skilfully as the action scenes. These are only a few reasons why this film should not be labeled as a B-movie. In fact, it might be one of the most easily enjoyable movies of the 80's.

Director Tony Scott, hadn't yet reached the stardom of his brother Ridley in the mid-80s. What he needed was a hit and he really though that Top Gun would be the script to get him that hit. Unfortunately, he was Paramount's third choice to direct. John Carpenter turned it down to direct Big Trouble in Little China, and David Cronenberg turned it down to direct The Fly. So there was beginner Tony Scott who had two below average features behind him, but had a brother in Ridley that had some say in Hollywood. Tony eventually got the job and a good cast of up-and-comers like Cruise, Val Kilmer, Kelly McGillis, and Anthony Edwards. The production was highly controlled by the studio and Scott was fired three times off the project, but they kept asking him back, until he finally finished it in 1986.

The result is a high-flying action film that tells the story of Maverick (Tom Cruise), a natural at piloting fighter jets that quickly makes it to the Top Gun Naval Flying School where he is all the rage - to the dismay of Iceman (Val Kilmer) - the previous top dog on the block. Maverick and his partner Goose (Anthony Edwards) are constantly bullied in the locker rooms by Iceman and Co., but when time comes for practice flying they are the very best. Maverick quickly falls for his instructor at the Academy - Charlie (Kelly McGillis) who helps him through the trials and tribulations of warfare. The film culminates in a tragedy that leads to an Academy finally united under one banner and fighting for one cause.

A negative of the film is that it shies away from the complexity that the final minutes of the film can offer up. Why does it take a tragedy to bring this Academy together? That is a question that screenwriters Jim Cash and Jack Epps Jr. gloss over in order to create a film-going experience that is more viewer friendly. One wonders if the film would have been a success if they did explore that theme, and something in the back of my mind tells me it might have been an even bigger hit and the critics would have embraced it more. Still the film's missed opportunities go unnoticed because it is high in excitement and some very powerful drama. One can see why this film put Tony Scott on the map as a director - it shows his skill in mixing action and dramatics - this is no Man on Fire mind you, but it is a great showing of that skill nonetheless.

Another good thing about the film is its attempt to be epic. The film feels bigger than it should. Its themes, as simplistic as they seem, are highlighted greatly by Scott. In many ways, I don't see one good reason why Scott wasn't perfect for the job. Here is a filmmaker who not only has skill, but strives to show that skill off so he can have a career later on. One sees Scott as a perfectionist, not in the sense that he wants to tell the perfect story, but he desperately wants this film to be please its audience. The film may be manipulative in the way it portrays its sad moments in the saddest way possible, with the music swelling at its most heart-wrenching cues. Also the love scenes are almost theatrical in their earnestness and their exquisiteness. Scott wants to immerse the audience in this film by making it totally watchable from end to end, and his workmanlike effort is what makes the film worth recommending by itself.

But also there is the great acting by everyone involved. Tom cruise is perfect as maverick. He is the ultimate and coolest pilot ever put on the big screen, and that is not because that is how the character was written either - it is because of Cruise. He plays Maverick in such a matter-of-fact way that one thinks that this may be how Cruise is in real life. It is a performance that immediately captures the audience's attention - and no other actor in the film can steal that away from him. Kelly McGillis is good too and also scorchingly hot. Cruise is lucky to just simulate the sex scene he has with her. It is a shame she never became a big star. Anthony Edwards is endearing and likable as Goose, and he plays a great straight man to Maverick. Val Kilmer does well as the 'bad guy' in the film, and his acting is strong enough that his character easily comes-off as a potent competitor of Maverick. Everyone else, from Michael Ironside's badass Jester, to John Stockwell's cool Cougar, do a good job. Look out for an elongated cameo by Meg Ryan too.

The technical aspects of the film are famous for being top notch for the time the film was made. The special effects are the most important aspect of the film, and while if you look too hard for mistakes you will undoubtedly find them, it is impossible not to acknowledge the unprecedented precision of the fight scenes, coupled with their exciting realization on screen. But good special effects, do not a movie make. The editing by Chris lebenzon and Billy Webber is one of the main reasons the film works. One feels that they put their heads together and wanted to make a film that flowed well and was of good length. There aren't too many continuity errors in this film. The score by Harold Faltermeyer is not too symphonic, containing a little more percussion than necessary, but overall it is entirely listenable - complementing the movie with good effect.

Overall, there is no reason why one shouldn't see Top Gun at some point in his or her life. It includes all the themes that one needs from a film and more. The emotion is strong, and the action is breathtaking and never boring. It is both a beautiful film and one that exposes how ugly life can be at times. At the end, we feel like we've been entertained, but we also feel as if we have learned a lesson from these characters and that is rare in an action film. But the reason that the film will not go down in history as one of the greats, is because of the refusal to dig deeper into character complexity caused by fear of audience alienation. Still, what is already there is more than good enough, and is worth watching whenever one has the chance.

2007-12-31T18:19:00.001-06:00

Another year has passed, leaving some great films and some bad ones in its wake. Usually I try to defend the quality of the overall state of cinema in these introductions, but 2007 has left me strangely conflicted. It contained an about equal amount of films rated one star and below, but there was a much smaller amount of films in the three and a half to four star categories. This may be due to two reasons. First - I have become much tougher on movies in general, or second - 2007 really was a step down from the excellent 2006 and 2005. To be honest, it may very well be the former. I frequently found myself rating films a half of a star lower then what the general consensus among professional critics would rate them. But, in my defense, this year I have tried to be extremely objectionable, and it may have been the year of the fairest ratings, if not the highest.

One thing I can't argue though, is that 2007 was definitely a year worth remembering. The themes in cinema this year were so varied, that I was surprised at every turn. Of course, no one could have expected the strong return of the Western genre. From Seraphim Falls to No Country for Old Men, westerns were not only large in quantity but high in quality too. It may reveal something about the need to rejuvenate old school cinema in a new way, or it may expose the general public's lack of enthusiasm toward more established genres. Either way, Westerns are welcome to grace the screens in 2008 - I enjoy them thoroughly. But there was also some major genre retreats this year, namely the war film genre. From action-packed mash-ups like The Kingdom, to revealing documentaries, to boring dramas like Lions for Lambs, the war in Iraq exhibited numerous box office failures. Myself, and the general public are seriously sick of the way Hollywood has treated the war on terror. Overall, this year exhibited interesting failures, triumphs, and gargantuan disappointments. Oh, and Hitman sucked. But now onto the annual...

Most Overrated Movie: Ocean's Thirteen

Most Underrated Movie: The Number 23

Most Boring Good Movie: The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Most Exciting Bad Movie: Next

Most Beautiful Movie: Across the Universe

Ugliest Movie: Grindhouse

Best Horror: The Mist

Best Comedy: Charlie Wilson's War

Best Animation: Beowulf

The Average Movie: The Game Plan

These are the 10 worst films of 2007. As always they are ordered from 'best' (10) to 'worst' (1). Enjoy!

Dis-Honorable Mentions (alphabetical): I Know Who Killed Me, Puccini for Beginners, The Salon, Saw 4, and Silk

10. Feel the Noise (*) - Truthfully, I am not the biggest fan of reggaeton. But to say that it can't be put to good use in a film about dancing is simply wrong. Director Alejandro Chomski completely misses the mark though. His endless efforts to make a clone of the superior Step Up and Stomp the Yard are also endless in the many ways they fail. By the 30-minute mark I was sick of the music, sick of the bland sets that all merged together, and sick of the horrid acting by the likes of Omarion. I wasn't sick of the plot, since there wasn't one - just a lame excuse to show a lot of average dance performances and lame romantic dialogue between the two leads. This film is a disappointment for dance movie fans and film fans in general. See at your own risk.

9. Are We Done Yet? (*) - Ice Cube films love to show up on my bottom 10 lists every year. It is not because I have something against the guy, but when the best moment of a film involves a stuffed raccoon attacking him, one knows they are in for a long night. Cube is also a bad actor, attempting to be badass in a film about a family moving into a new house. It is completely pointless, but Cube wants to look cool. And who wouldn't want to at least garner a little more credibility while involved in a catastrophic failure like this one.

8. Hannibal Rising (*) - When he was asked to be in Hannibal Rising, Anthony Hopkins declined since he felt that the script 'did not stay true to the previous movies' - I totally agree. The worst part of this fact is that it was written by Thomas Harris - the author of all the Hannibal books and the creator of the titular character. While it sounds like a great idea to attempt to shine a light on the beginnings of this character's life, Harris fails both in his pedestrian book, and his script for one of the most boring and laughable films of the year. The book and film are simple cash-ins for Harris, who didn't take any time to make either of them very good or creative. Meanwhile, he has put an ever-lasting blemish on one of the most interesting characters of all time.

7. Delta Farce (*) - Larry the Cable Guy promised that Delta Farce would be much funnier and better then his previous film (which also made my Bottom 10) Health Inspector. The fact that this film only repeated the previous film's dreadful feel and awful jokes is a testament that Larry has no feel for humor in films at all. His jokes work better in stand-up, but when realized on screen, they are part of a sheer train wreck that one watches with an unbelieving look on his or her face.

6. Who's Your Caddy? (*) - We've all seen this film before. It is a film that depends on racial stereotypes to get laughs from the audience. If it functioned as that it might have stayed out of this list, but the film is so shallow it even gets tiring. At least when Martin Lawrence makes a movie like this one (too often these days), he always tries to pick a script that has at least some emotional resonance in its climax. This film has nothing like this either at the end or anywhere throughout the film's too long running time. It is a cold-hearted, racist comedy that demeans the commonality that black and white people have finally reached in modern America. Don't let it insult your intelligence.

5. Redacted (*) - This film tells the story of a group of American soldiers who rape an Iraqi girl. It is not a documentary; instead it is a film 'based on a real account'. Director Brian De Palma has been called fearless for making this film, as it reportedly shines a light on something that is kept from the general public and will get a lot of criticism for portraying soldiers in this way. They are wrong. With this film De Palma shows that he is both a coward and a bad filmmaker. His Anti-American prose is so disgustingly false, so hateful, and so badly put together, that Redacted leaves a bad taste in one's mouth for all the wrong reasons. It might not be the very worst film of this year, but it is the most hate-filled one. The more I think about this abberation, the less I like it.

4. Kickin' It Old Skool (1/2) - Jamie Kennedy's newest dumber-then-dumb comedy lives up to that classification, and adds annoying, terrible, and embarrassing to it. I guess Kennedy wants to embarrass himself in his films so people can laugh at him, but I found it hard to even do that this time around. Instead I sunk lower and lower in my seat, as the realization that I was one of the few people staying in the theater to watch it until its dumb end slowly started sinking in.

3. Hostel: Part 2 (1/2) - Eli Roth is running out of people to blame for his film's failure at the box office. He has blamed everyone from film fans, to illegal downloaders, to other filmmakers - everyone but himself. Well I put the blame squarely on him. His Cannibal Holocaust-inspired films are immature in their tone, and their B-grade technical quality set cinema back a step as an art form. Hostel: Part 2 is an even bigger offender than the first. Roth's disregard for humanity spurred by the lack of any dimensionality in his characters, creates a film with absolutely no redeeming qualities, and I mean none. Reportedly, Roth's next film will be an adaptation of the Stephen King novel Cell. So Roth will probably turn that complex tale of technology taking over people's lives into a brainless splatter-fest. God forbid.

2. Epic Movie (no stars) - Epic Movie was actually pretty good. I saw it on an airplane and there were only two walk-outs.

1. BRATZ: The Movie (no stars) - This film is not only terrible, it is also very dangerous. To this day, I believe one of the worst thing a film can do is tell kids to aspire to be in cliques and separate themselves from people who are seemingly not good enough. Mean Girls combated that mindset effectively, but BRATZ embraces and preaches it, while also advertising horrible dolls. Girls younger than 12 who will see this may grow up to be like the characters portrayed in the film - annoyingly superficial and demanding to be put up on a pedastool when they should probably be hit in the face with one instead. Please do not see this film. It shows the very worst side of Hollywood and is the worst film of 2007.

Honorable Mentions (alphabetical): Alpha Dog, Gone Baby Gone, I'm Not There, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, and Zoo

10. The Kite Runner (***1/2) - For all its greatness, Khaled Hosseini's book "The Kite Runner", can never be hailed as one that is aesthetically detailed. Marc Forster and cinematographer Roberto Schaefer remedy that, while David Benioff's amazing adaptation keeps the emotional tone of the book fully intact. While the film doesn't stay true to the book all the way, it keeps its main story of two boys' (later men) dealing with the conflict that a Soviet invasion and a take over of the Taliban can wreak on their lives pretty accurate. This film contains some of the most touching, disturbing, and beautiful scenes in any film this year, and the fact that it works on all these levels makes it a complete and fulfilling experience. It is impossible to not get emotional at the end of this film - an honest display of the unfairness of the Taliban and the redemption of a flawed human being, all montaged together to some of the most emotional film music composed this year. Amazing film.

9. Beowulf (***1/2) - Robert Zemeckis' follow-up to his beautiful The Polar Express is the amazing Beowulf. I am one of the people who thought that no pre-historic war film could be better than 300, but Beowulf proved me wrong. It just goes to show that when you have an expert at the helm, special things are bound to happen. The MOCAP technology in this film which is Zemeckis's specialty is even better than before, and you can actually judge the actor's performance even though they are wholly animated. Having said that, the acting is great by all involved, especially Anthony Hopkins, whose tongue-in-cheek portrayal of King Hrothgar is one of the best of the year. Another good thing about the film is that it doesn't stay true to the original poem, but instead modernizes it and provides a few themes that may not have existed in the novel. An interesting thing about this version is that unlike the poem, it doesn't embrace the Christian religion, instead it questions it. This is expected from Zemeckis, whose hero is the late atheist Carl Sagan. Yet, like Sagan would have done, Zemeckis shows the Christ-fearing character Unferth redeem himself at the end. It is a complex story with many such themes, and deserves to be seen many times over just so one can spot all the thematic elements. It is also fun to watch and never boring.

8. Reign Over Me (***1/2) - A film of indescribable sadness, Reign Over Me is touching from beginning to end. There is not a wasted frame or line of dialogue, and the acting is some of the best of the year. Adam Sandler plays Charlie Fineman - a man who lost his family on 9/11. He is a troubled man, bordering on crazy, who is trying to forget that moment in his life and therefore pushes everyone and everything from the past as far away as possible. Fineman's confession of how he reacted on that fateful day, and how he feels, is the saddest moment in film of 2007. Don Cheadle is also amazing as Fineman's friend who tries to help out. I cannot recommend this film more. It is a flawless tear-jerker, but you'll feel good about crying. One can only hope Sandler is not ignored by the Academy.

7. No Country for Old Men (***1/2) - There is nothing like a good Coen brothers movie, and No Country for Old Men is like nothing I've ever seen before. It combines genres and breaks the preset boundaries of cinema without fear. The film is beautiful beyond belief, while displaying the utmost ugliness of humanity in a fair and realistic way. It is filled with emotion, but also with silence, making it a meditation on how film can make people feel during a viewing. I hated the bad people in this film, and prayed for the good ones to succeed. The ambiguous ending offered by the Coens is in their style and is as fulfilling as it is frustrating. This is a film that will be talked about months after its release, maybe years, and contains some scenes and lines of dialogue that will be in my head for just as long. This truly needs to be seen to be believed.

6. Rescue Dawn (***1/2) - At first glance, Rescue Dawn may feel like a bland prisoner-type film with assorted war themes, but as one digs deeper, many more themes are realized. This survival tale is full of complexity in decision-making and the weight of those decisions have great consequences. Christian Bale and Steve Zahn do well to not lose the humanity needed in an epic like this one, and director Werner Herzog is as invested in their fates as the viewers will be while watching the film. It is that care by Herzog that makes the film, and one wishes all filmmakers loved their characters and held as much respect toward them as he does. This is a film that will be enjoyed by everyone, not only fans of the prison genre, but fans of all films, especially ones that don't dramatize things too much, but create realistic characters that we care for. This film is the best of its kind in recent years.

5. Into the Wild (***1/2) - Who would have thought that Sean Penn was also a good director. His film about the ultimate escape from materialism and embrace of the things in this world that really matter is something to behold and to enjoy. The performance by Emile Hirsch solidifies him as the best actor of his generation and one to watch-out for in the future. His portrayal is challenging as he is playing a character that may be unlikeable, even cold-hearted at times, but these thoughts never go through ones mind, as Hirsch is endlessly likable and one can understand where his character is coming from. A special mention is deserved of Hal Holbrook who delivers one of the most heartbreaking performances in a film this year. He should be nominated for an Oscar and should win. If you like films that hold a message that resounds deeply within us all, watch this film.

4. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (***1/2) - Your whole body is paralyzed. You can't talk at all and the only part of your body you can move is your left eyelid. That is what the main character in this film is experiencing and what he is bound to experience for the rest of his life. The most surprising thing about the film is that it is nowhere near as sad as the plot would indicate. It is sad, of course, but director Julian Schnabel decides to tackle the story in a different way. He portrays the relationships other people have with the paralyzed Jean-Dominique (played brilliantly by Matthey Amalric). While in the state he is in, he still hurts others and he is still selfish and holds all the flaws of humanity. One can view this film as a criticism of the belief that people with disabilities are nicer. That is false - they are the same people. One can also view it as an exercise in cinematography as it is some of the most creative stuff. The first ten minutes of the film are all from Jean-Dominique's point of view - an amazing feat anyway you look at it. This film has to be watched in film schools.

3. Into Great Silence (***1/2) - Two hours and forty nine minutes of meditation are what comprise Philip Groning's Into Great Silence. Most people will find this documentary on the lives of a group of monks excruciatingly boring, but I found it as enlightening as Groning meant for it to be. After getting approval from the monks to film on site, Groning took full advantage of it. His camera acts as an admirer of these people's lives and the beautiful location which helps them meditate. These people are not in love with themselves or any material possessions - they only love the world around them. They have respect for every living thing and value its life as much as they value their own, maybe even more. This may be the most silent film of the year, but it is also the one we can learn the most from. The best documentary of the year.

2. There Will Be Blood (***1/2) - Director Paul Thomas Anderson has spent the past decade hanging out with big names like Stanley Kubrick (on the set of Eyes Wide Shut), Steven Spielberg (on the set of Minority Report), and Robert Altman (on the set of A Praire Home Companion). He has taken all that he has learned from these three auteurs and has created one of the most captivating films of 2007. There Will Be Blood is as much a homage to American cinema as it is a criticism of American greed. It is a love-it-or-hate-it film to the best sense of the phrase, because of its long moments of silence punctured by some of the most over-the-top scenes in movie history. Daniel Day-Lewis plays Plainview - a man who discovers oil and decides to do whatever it takes to make a profit from it. His actions represent some of the most evil things that any character has done in a 2007 non-horror film. Yes, even more evil than Javier Bardem's Anton in No Country for Old Men. The film is so many things, but the word dramedy describes it best. It is the darkest and most disheartening film of the year, but if you find yourself laughing at some parts - don't worry, you are supposed to. The film's ending is so amazing, and so exciting, that it is definitely the most memorable sequence of all I've seen in 2007. Do not miss this gem.

1. Atonement (****) - The only four-star film of the year, Joe Wright's Atonement had me absolutely stunned as I walked out of the theater. It is so emotionally hard-hitting, so challenging, and oh so beautiful that at times I got shortness of breath. Director Joe Wright has made an almost perfect film from the first frame to the last. While this is not as 'enjoyable' as Pride and Prejudice, it is with good reason. Atonement gets under your skin and challenges you as a viewer without holding back. The cinematography is some of the best of the year and some scenes are absolutely breath-taking (the beach war scene is only one example but the most popular one). Wright plays with the way different people view the same event in different ways, and how the way the see this event is based solely on their psychological mindset. This adds a level of complexity that no other romantic drama has even attempted in the year 2007. The performances here are amazing, but Saoirse Ronan stands out and she is the youngest one here. The ending of the film is amazing just like the rest of it. The Best Picture of 2007.

Tribute #7: Legend (1985)

2007-12-29T20:45:00.000-06:00

RATING:

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

Both director Ridley Scott and star Tom Cruise have refused to acknowledge their 1985 collaboration Legend as a film that turned out worthy of their talents. Cruise has almost erased it from his memory because of religious reasons and has turned down any and all involvement in participating in featurettes found on special editions DVDs. Apparently, Scientology does not permit him to associate himself, or acknowledge some of the themes and objects in this film (fairys, unicorns, fantastical creatures) as it condemns all types of realization of fantastical creatures. This actually brings up a frightening thought that maybe Cruise has not seen Lord of the Rings!!! Ugh. Ridley Scott has condemned because he didn't like the way it turned out. As a follow-up to Blade Runner, he is absolutely right - it does not amount to much. But when compared to some of his other films, especially stuff like Someone to Watch Over Me and G.I. Jane, Legend easily stands out.

I am of the opinion that Legend should not be condemned, in fact I think that it deserves some kind of revival. A remake would be great. That is chiefly true, because of the film consists of many short-comings surrounded by moments of pure genius. In fact, some of those moments, like when a character dances with a unicorn's horn in hand while spewing an evil rhyme, are some of the most memorable fantasy images I've ever seen, and I've seen Lord of the Rings. The story is a all too familiar and fun. The Lord of Darkness (Tim Curry) tries to take over the world by doing a simple task: killing two unicorns. But just like every man in the world, his plans are ruined when he falls for the innocent Princess Lily (Mia Sara). He wants to bed her as soon as possible, but Jack (Tom Cruise) - Lily's true love, stands in his way of doing that and taking over the world.

The most interesting thing about Scott's approach is that he does not make Legend a glossy fantasy like Blade Runner. It actually includes some pretty raw depictions of violence that don't hide behind the shadows. Scott is also great at depicting the macabre themes that would be associated with a film that depicts the workings of the Lord of Darkness. A scene where demon chefs are chopping people up is an excellent example of this, as is the depiction of frightening imps coming to life. A lot of later films seem to be inspired by these and other scenes in Legend, especially Francis Ford Corolla's Dracula, which is worth seeing just for the blood lust of it all.

But Scott's mistake is also one related to the images he put in his film. Calling some of the scenes childish is being way too easy on the absolute disgrace that some of them can be. There is a particular scene involving Jack and a tree that is absolutely embarrassing, and if Scott wanted to use it as a reference to "Jack and the Bean Stalk" it is definitely lost in translation. One wonders why there is such a mix of conflicting elements in the film. On one hand, I am willing to blame them mostly on the script by William Hjortsberg, but on the other hand, this is the same Ridley Scott that made Alien and Blade Runner before making Legend, and I think he would have had the skill to even out the film. Not that i want the film to be a one-tone bore. I welcome conflicting emotions and scenes in films, but I only appreciate them when they make sense together and are well executed on the technical side.

Speaking of which, it is very good, at least for a film released in the mid-80's. Still, it can not measure up to Scott's previous efforts in technical prowess. Legend is missing Alien's special effects subtlety, and Blade Runner's consisted aesthetic tone. But if we give credit where credit's due, this Scott effort is still one that can at times be downright beautiful to look at. The cinematography by Alex Thomson is a bit too soft at times, but it actually helps hide the cheesy special effects that are sometimes too easy to spot. The score by Tangerine Dream is interesting, but that is all. Almost too quirky for the film at times. But the worst part of the technical aspects of the film, and the film itself is the editing. I am blaming the choppiness of the film, not on Terry Rawlings, because there are two versions out there. The European version is the one Rawlings cut and people who have seen say it is better than the choppy American version - the one that I saw. The film can now only be found in this version so my rating reflects only its quality.

On the acting side, things are better. Tom Cruise delivers an amazing performance as Jack. He plays a good guy and plays him straight. Skills that he displays in later films with romance are seen here, and with this film Cruise cements himself as a natural talent. May be some of the best acting in a fantasy film, until Ian McKellen in Lord of the Rings. Mia Sara is at times too innocent here, but the lines she is given are super cool and she delivers them perfectly. Tim Curry seems to be just having fun, but at times he is more frightening than most villains that have better make-up jobs. He is the stuff of nightmares but in a good way. Overall the acting is solid - something rare in the fantasy genre.

The film has become a cult classic, but the chopping done by the studio has kept it from becoming a success. Add to that the big names refusing to want to be associated with it, and you have a film that has been almost forgotten. But if you do see it in a bargain bin, don't ignore it and give it a shot. It may not be worth paying full price, but it is worth a look, especially for Cruise fans seeking a hidden gem.

Tribute #6: All the Right Moves (1983)

2007-12-26T21:45:00.000-06:00

RATING:

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

In All the Right Moves Tom Cruise plays Stefan (yes, Stefan!!) Djordjevic - a cocky football jock living in a forgotten small Pennsylvania town that used to be part of the state's so-called 'rustbelt'. The most important thing for Stefan in life is to get out of this seemingly God-forsaken town, but like a giant black hole, it keeps sucking him back in. His only hope is getting an athletic scholarship that will help him get into any big school he wants, as far as away from home as possible. But his arrogance towards everyone and everything, is seen as a threat by Coach Nickerson (Craig T. Nelson) he puts a label on him that will trouble any football recruiter - player with an attitude problem. It becomes more and more apparent to Stefan that his life will not turn out the way he had hoped and planned.

This film was made back in the days when football dramas easily garnered a much deserved R rating. Unlike today, when things like Invincible plague movie theaters, the hardships, the angst, and the actual drama that a film like this requires are shown to the audience. It is almost refreshing to watch this film and see it come off stronger than most current day sports dramas. Director Michael Chapman (who later in his career turned solely to doing cinematography) is not afraid of showing the gritty side of a story like this, the side that is bad enough to cause there to be drama in an athlete's life. In this film's case it is the lifestyle of the most popular kids in school that turns out to be Stefan's demise. When you think everyone envies you, that is when you tend to make the worst mistakes in order to retain that status. Because of this, Stefan loses sight of his goals and dreams and on one faithful night, he turns his life upside down.

Another concept that director Chapman and screenwriter Michale Kane throw out at the audience is the frequent unfairness associated with High School sports. Coaches may often bench players that are becoming too popular and too good, because they are afraid of being overshadowed by them. Nickerson is such a coach, and his clash with Stefan seems almost inevitable. This is an ugly message that has been met with disapproval. I mean, when are coaches portrayed negatively in movies? It is almost taboo. But I admire the approach of the film. Sometimes the player is right, sometimes the coach is, sometimes both are wrong - we are all human.

Not to say that the script doesn't succumb to the usual cliches found in such films. In fact the whole film is a cliche that is sprinkled with various thoughtful and original moments that are strong enough to make it recommendable. All the Right Moves makes for an enjoyable watch. Especially when we see Stefan stand up to for his team in front of the coach and get kicked off the team for it, realizing how bad what just happened was. It is just classic. Also the film doesn't skip out on the language that is often found in coach-player dialogue. This film has plenty of f-bombs to boot. Also there is a sex scene that involves Stefan and his girlfriend Lisa (Lea Thompson) that is definitely deserving of the R rating. especially for an early 80's film.

The acting here is good all around. Tom Cruise and Craig t. Nelson carry this movie on their respective shoulders. This is the first time Cruise shows a different side of his acting. In previous films he had played the innocent, do-gooder that wanted to make everything right. Here, his hatred toward his town drives him to despicable behaviors that range from uncontrolled violence to sexism (shades of Magnolia?). He fits into the role perfectly, without making his character too unlikeable. No doubt we can connect with what he is feeling. There are a lot of people in High School that sometimes feel like they just want to go away. Nelson, while a bit typecast, does a great job as the hateful coach who only looks out for number one, while destroying dreams in the process. The supporting cast is good too, with Lea Thompson deserving a mention for her sheer beauty.

Technically the film is solid. The cinematography by Jan de Bont is fitting for a sports drama, but there are moments of sheer bliss. That is especially true during the games, when we fell we are right in the middle of it all. Through de Bont's camera we feel the triumph and the downfall with these players. The music by David Richard Campbell is a cliche though, and in recent years he has shown that he is better at arranging and conducting music than composing it. With any sports movie, the editing needs to be mentioned. It is done by the late David Garfield who does his best to stray away from convention while not cutting it like some Grudge freak-out. He does an admirable job.

Overall, the film does what it sets out to do, but while watching it, one senses it has a lot more under the surface than previously thought. It has all the hardships that are supposed to be found in a sports drama without the added dose of Hollywoodized slickness. the gritty side of the game and of life, is shown to full effect. Also, this is a must see for Tom Cruise fans, as it may be his first showing as an actor capable of more than just smiling at the camera. Plus, his character's name is Stefan. How can you lose? Recommended.

Tribute #5: Risky Business (1983)

2007-12-24T18:02:00.000-06:00

RATING:

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

The most parodied and homaged film of Tom Cruise's career (yes even more than the Mission:Impossible series), Risky Business is also the film that launched him into super-stardom, and it was only his fifth. It did that for two reasons: it exploited his good looks to the highest degree possible, and more importantly, is a very well written and realized teen comedy. The latter is actually hard to come by these days, Judd Apatow considered, and I frequently go back to the early 80's to find something in the genre that is truly satisfying, In fact, I frequently go back to Risky Business - it is pure fun and holds my attention for all the right reasons.

It is in fact Risky Business that prevents me into buying into the whole Judd Apatow craze that is going on these days. His films are mostly episodic messes that end in satisfying ways that trick the audience that they have just seen something with substance. Paul Brickman's script on the other hand, is not just comedic, it is written with the flow and the overall effect of the film in mind. Yes, the film indulges in sequences that are over-the-top and is too confident in itself and its young stars, but show me a teen comedy that doesn't do that from any decade. The difference here is that it does these things successfully.

The film tells the story of Joel Goodsen (Tom Cruise) - a privileged teen from the suburbs of Chicago whose parents leave for a week. He is left the house and the car - a Porsche - all to himself, and that spells trouble. Joel decides to live life to the fullest, but that gets him into huge trouble - the Porsche falls into Lake Michigan. Now he is forced to come up with enough money to buy a brand new one, but his lack of self-control, coupled with his friends' carelessness are two things that make his predicament even harder to overcome.

During the course of the film the characters participate in various escapades, especially sexual ones, and do things that are endlessly detrimental to their goals. An interesting way one can view this film is as a type of criticism of Joel's rich lifestyle. While this is nowhere near as hard-hitting as say Alpha Dog in that sense, we are almost saddened as we come away from this film, about the irresponsibility that is allowed in white collar societies. One feels guilty for enjoying him or herself as much as one does during the film, because what we are shown is a disastrous situation that spins further and further out of control. What the film also foretells is the cultural change that will appear in the next 20 or so years. The early 80's began the 'money is the most important thing in the world' worldview that plagues our society to this very day. We want to be able to live the life that Joel does in the film, a life which permits you to do any crazy thing you want, from buying hookers to racing cars (both in the same night), without much consequence. It is something that makes the film even more appealing than it is initially.

Of course you can look at the film as many people have - just a fun romp comedy that offers some good, empty fun at the movies. You should not look for good acting either. Tom Cruise does fine of course. He wouldn't be where he is today if he didn't display good acting chops in this film. Though it must be admitted that in those days Tom Cruise got casted because of his good looks, more so than his acting. Rebecca De Mornay makes her premiere here and is as hot as anything to grace the screen in the 80's. the fact that her acting is pedestrian didn't stop me from enjoying the film though. Other actors like Joe Pantoliano, Bronson Pinchot, and Curtis Armstrong are good enough to not be bothersome, but nothing worth mentioning as far as nuances in their performances here.

Technically the film gets some points for being filmed entirely in the Chicagoland area. Chicago looks great and is utilized to the highest extent possible. It is emphasized by the gentle photography by cinematographer Bruce Surtees, and it all flows together with the dramatic editing by one of the best editors around Richard Chew (his recent work includes such titles like The New World and Bobby). But the most important thing about the film on the technical side of things is the original music by Tangerine Dream. The band's music highlights much of the film's most memorable scenes, though it doesn't feel enough like a score - something that was all too common in 80's comedies.

Overall this film is recommendable, whether you want to watch it as a simple comedy or a criticism of some aspects of modern society. It is great to watch a young Tom Cruise taking on a comedic role - something that he doesn't do so much anymore. Also there is plenty of sex and funny one-liners and characters to keep even Judd Apatow fans interested. So go ahead and if you have not yet seen Risky Business, see what all the fuss is about. You will find that it is worth watching and even re-watching, especially if you are feeling down.

"Stuff On My Mind" Part 3: These Comapnies Should Be Bankrupt

2007-12-22T20:00:00.000-06:00

Burger King
TiVo
IBM
The Weinstein Company
Blockbuster

These are just some of the companies that are currently on an upswing from what seemed like inevitable breakdown leading to a disappearance off the face of the Earth. So how did they come back? One word: marketing. Marketing can make (Apple) or break (Dimension) a company. It is so frequently the sole reason a company doesn't make it that one wonders why companies can't learn their lesson. If you are struggling, invest some money in your marketing department - it is that easy. Of course it is never guaranteed that the marketing will pay-off, and that is what makes business so exciting.

Burger King: The reason Burger King is still around is not because of the freakish 'King' character that has become oh so popular right now, it is because of McDonald's' poor marketing of their own brand. When people become less excited about a certain product, they go to that product's nearest competitor. In this case people got tired of 'we love to see you smile' so much that they decided what it would feel like if they went to BK. Well, I was one of those people and I must say that the difference between BK and MC in food quality and service quality is not gargantuan, but MC is a little better. Lets just say I deserved an apology as soon as I walked into Burger King. There was mess on every table and bench, including the one I was sitting on. My order was delayed, though I did get a sincere apology from the cashier behind the counter, and the food wasn't very good, in fact it is arguable that it is worse than McDonald's. But none of that matters. BK got my money and many others' money as we made the switch, and that money will go to a marketing campaign that will be better than whatever McDonald's is offering.

TiVo: I will keep this short: DirecTV messed up. By now we should all have DVRs in our houses, but DirecTV decided to advertise itself weakly, and n all the wrong places (Blockbuster). This gave Comcast and TiVo to take away some of its industry share. Bad marketing. Comcast is a monopoly that welcomed this, but TiVo was the really big winner. Their new CEO has done all the right things, getting the TiVo name back out to the public. His biggest weapon - print advertising. Print advertising works better than internet advertising as it is easier to discern an ad while paging through a magazine with a few ads versus browsing the internet where there are many ads.

IBM: I am not sure when IBM returned, but it has advertised the Hell out of its partnership with lenovo and that started about five or six months ago. Before, HP did not have to worry about another competitor in the laptop side of things, but then came IBM/lenovo laptops - more affordable, reliable, and advertised.

The Weinstein Company: I hope the brothers Weinstein file bankruptcy soon, but the hope is dwindling more and more each day. They cut films to their liking and force imaginative directors like Terry Gilliam into production Hell, like they did with The Brothers Grimm. Their last ten films have made little or no money at the Box Office, due to their poor marketing. I mean how can a film like Grindhouse not make money? Easily: Depend solely on word of mouth to propel your movie to fame. Grindhouse has now become a 'cult hit', but that just means it failed at theaters, but there is a small following that will buy the DVDs. I just look at all the doomed films on the pipeline for these guys and am amazed there are so many of them. How are these guys still making enough money to fund more films that are bound to fail?

Blockbuster: Why do we still go to this store to rent films when we can electronically get them from Netflix? Why is Netfilx the one losing market share when Blockbuster is gaining? Because of desperate marketing by Blockbuster that actually payed-off. This appeared back when Netflix was all the rage and everyone forgot that going to a store and physically renting films is a pain-staking and unneeded ordeal. This campaign basically consisted of Blockbuster employees endlessly bugging customers to sign-up for this or that. Even repeat customers. Granted, enough people signed up to put the company in the black. What did Netflix do all this time? Sit on their asses while Blockbuster sneaked up behind them. Be aggressive in marketing.

-Stefan Vlahov

Tribute #4: Losin' It (1983)

2007-12-18T22:44:00.000-06:00

RATING:

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

Losin' It is the Superbad of the 80's, but without the heart. Like the 2007 Judd Apatow hit, it is a teen buddy movie/sex comedy that was made to appeal to a similar age group. But there is something missing in Losin' It - we never get the feeling of empathy for any of these characters. Instead we look down on them for their mischievous actions, their unfunny remarks, and their sheer carelessness about life. If the characters weren't so selfish, this film would have been the fun romp it sold itself as being, but instead we are left with pin-pointing every one of their deficiencies. Said deficiencies are mostly caused by the pedestrian script (it is debatable that this word should be in quotes) written by Bill L. Norton. It is full of blabber and empty remarks that have become all too familiar these days in Van Wilder movies.

The worst part of the script is its attempt to be funny no matter what. It is an honorable proposition, but in the film nothing truly holds-up as funny. The film contains a lot more stupid-funny moments than clever-funny scenes and lines; so much so that at some point it even gets boring and the 'jokes' get tiresome. Yet the film is not a total wash, because it provides a great opportunity to witness immensely talented people lower themselves in an attempt to capitalize on the popularity of Breaking Away. These talented people contain such names like current A-lister Tom Cruise, the amazing actor Jackie Earle Haley, Into the Blue/Turistas director John Stockwell, legendary actress Shelley Long, and 8 Mile director Curtis Hanson.

All these names should not be faulted for the downfall of this film, they should only be hailed for the rare times they lift the film out of the ditches. The film is simply a story of four friends - the shy, closed-up Woody (Tom Cruise), the oversexed Dave (Jackie Earle Haley), the trouble making Spider (John Stocwell), and Dave's witty brother Wendell (John Navin Jr.) - who decide to go to Tijuana to drink alcohol, party it up, and finally lose their virginities. They are accompanied by a relatively older woman (Shelley Long) who promises them a good time, but is with them for a different reason.

While director Curtis Hanson can't do much about the silly parts of the film, he tries to dramatize the end of the film, especially scenes that involve Woody and Spider - the characters that while as one-dimensional as the other two, are the ones that seemingly have the least growing to do. The others, especially Haley's Dave, are one joke caricatures that are there to counter-balance the complexity of Woody and Spider. It is surprising that fans of the film claim that the actions of Woody and Spider are too dramatic and don't fit in the film, but I want to argue that they are what makes the film worthwhile. In the end these two characters are changed, for better or for worse, and that change represents the closest thing to a character arch in the whole film.

The acting is pretty good, especially for an 80's movie. Cruise shows he is skilled in both comedy and drama in what is his first leading role. His character is pleasant and we are thankful he is the main one. Jackie Earle Haley does what he is called on to do - be obnoxious - and he is successful. He does go over the top , and the lines are not funny enough, but that isn't really his fault. John Stockwell is the bad-ass Spider and he demonstrates the most force of all, sneering and cursing his way through a performance that is both provocative and cliched. John Navin Jr is clever and has great delivery. And as far as Shelley Long is concerned, she shows shades of her future self here, and her character is mysterious.

It is too bad that the film is technically pitiable. The Tijuanan setting is utilized well, as far as production design is concerned, but that is where the good part ends. The cinematography by Gil Taylor does not deserve mentioning. Even the scenes that contain naked women are easily forgotten, because of the boring photography. The editing is better - at least the scenes are in the order they should be. The worst part of the technical aspects is the sorry score by Ken Wannberg. If you are wondering what it sounds like, pick-up any John Williams 80's score and imagine it had none of the creativity. That should get you pretty close.

Overall, Losin It is not good enough to spend time or money on. As an incidental watch on the AMC channel, it definitely fits, but it is important to note that the film never strives for more than being a sex romp comedy, even with Curtis Hanson's attempts at invoking some dramatical elements. I can only recommend you see this film if you want to witness some famous names as you may never will again. Jackie Earle Haley especially, though he might do a comedic part again (unlikely after his turn in Little Children).

"Stuff On My Mind" Part 2: The Writer's Strike

2007-12-17T20:48:00.000-06:00

Now that the Writer's Guild of America strike is affecting movies (a Johnny Depp and an Oliver Stone film have been canceled), it is time for me to chime in on it. Let's get something out of the way first - I am on the side of the writers. Screenwriters have always shared the least credit for the final product, both financially and otherwise. When I say the latest Marc Forster movie is great I am talking about the director as if he created the whole idea by himself. In fact, Forester is one who always works off of a script written by someone else. The greatness of films like Stay, Monster's Ball, and The Kite Runner should be attributed to them too.

On the financial side of things, writers are also definitely getting the short end of the stick. The highest-paid writer in Hollywood, Akiva Goldsman for Angels and Demons, gets that title because he got paid $4,000,000. Wow. A big number for people like me, but when compared to the highest paid directors and actors, it is almost despicable. And now writers want their due - they want the producers and studios to give them percentage deals from DVD sales and a salary minimum. These things wouldn't be a big problem if not for one thing - the movie industry is not making money. Most studios reported second quarter losses, even though box office numbers are up from last year and the year before. Yet, increasing film costs and inflation are the two things that are definitely making studio-heads stingy. So what we have here is that studios are not making as much money as they used to, and writers want more money. How do you find a solution to that?

It is almost impossible. If the writers get their way, studios may never be profitable again. But if the studios get their way, films will be written by angry writers and will therefore be terrible. The projected date for the strike's end is now sometime in March. That is unacceptable. The hold-up is due to neither side wanting to lose. So this is not a money issue anymore, it is also a power issue and those are even harder to solve. When egos are involved, you know you're in it for the long run.

The effects of the strike lasting longer will basically be the following: A film shortage will develop and many big blockbusters will be pushed back to Summer '09 to counter-balance the lack of new releases. Also more films will be re-released in theaters and DVD formats. It will be an exciting time for sure.

So what is my solution? I don't have one. Obviously if I had to think of one off the top of my head, the word 'compromise' is the first thing on my mind. The likeliness of compromise is less than one would think. Businesses don't thrive on compromise, they thrive on unfair treatment of their workers. Ask anyone. Anyway, I know this is a boring subject, but it can get really interesting. If you want more updates and information click here.

-Stefan Vlahov

Tribute #3: The Outsiders (1983)

2007-12-15T21:54:00.000-06:00

RATING:

A Film Review By Stefan Vlahov

After the box office failures that were Apocalypse Now and One From the Heart, legendary director Francis Ford Coppola needed a hit on his hands. His refusal to sell-out and make a film that would ensure a success at the box office (like Godfather Part 3) and instead create an original genre pic, led him to buying the rights to the S.E. Hinton novel "The Outsiders". The resulting film is a fast-paced, and star-studded little film that does not go through the motions, and keeps things interesting throughout. Coppola knew he wasn't going to make the next The Godfather, and he seemingly doesn't try to, as he refuses to regress to the style he used in The Godfather films. Here he is less deliberate and observant, instead only focusing on emotional interaction when different characters contemplate their next move against their opposing gang. Also, The Outsiders possesses a low amount of relevant dialogue, but a higher amount of action, compared to the films Coppola is known for.

At first glance, The Outsiders may seem like a coming-of-age film. It involves a group of teen characters that are involved in violent situations after all. But somehow, Coppola brushes aside any 'loss of innocence' theme that the book might have originally possessed and creates a film that focuses on showing the ugliness of gang violence. The message is still a good one, and a potent one that has not lost its effectiveness even after 20 plus years. The film tells the story of two different gangs, the Greasers (like the ones from Grease), and the Socials - a group of people with a much higher stature and therefore with a lot more power. What starts out as a harmless get-together between two couples turns into a gang war sparked by a horrible act committed by one of the Greasers.

While Coppola is guilty of making things too literal - something he will retain for the rest of his filmmaking career, it is almost a demonstration of bravery on his part. He wants this film to say what it should say and there aren't many scenes or lines of dialogue that stray from his vision. That's not to say that there aren't any profound scenes in this film. At times the film even feels inspirational, especially in scenes when gang members contemplate the war they are in and its implications and outcomes that seem inevitably negative. Also Coppola's tendency for realism magnifies the sense of depression and tragedy that surrounds the characters. Coppola has never been a fake, and The Outsiders is a true testament to that ideal.

The film's cast is full of up-and-comers that later on became big stars. It is full of names that are instantly recognizable these days like Matt Dillon, Patrick Swayze, Tom Cruise, and Emilio Estevez. Even Diane Lane has a small supporting role. It is not a surprise then that the performances are great all around. The actors commit few 'young actor' mistakes, and most of them can be devoted to Rob Lowe anyway. Yet, one gets the feeling that the characters are one-dimensional version of real gang members. This restricts any of the actors to shine through, though Tom Cruise and Ralph Macchio still manage somehow.

The technical side of the film is the most interesting aspect for me. Of course this is to be expected when Coppola is behind the camera. Coppola tries to stylistically tie this movie in with Gone with the Wind, by softening the edges of scenes and making the film feel like it could actually have been made in the 30's. But this shouldn't be dismissed as a stylistic afterthought for Coppola, since the whole of The Outsiders purposefully feels like a tie-in to Gone with the Wind. The cinematography is exceptional, especially for an 80's film. Cinematographer Stephen Burum increases the levels of coloring for each scene so the sunsets are redder, the hair is greasier, and Diane Lane's smile is brighter. Also the film has a great score by Carmine Coppola (Francis Ford Coppola's dad) which feels too epic for the film, but this is not really a negative - it's absolutely tantalizing.

Overall I recommend you give this film a shot. It may take some getting-used-to, but it is a pleasure to watch and experience. Since The Outsiders, Francis Ford Coppola has seemingly lost his talent. It is something I am reluctant to say, but when people like Michael Mann are making better films then him, we know he's just not the same. So The Outsiders also represents one of the last Coppola efforts that is truly worth seeing. The fact that is also an enjoyable, if hard-hitting film, is only icing on the cake.

Stuff on My Mind Archives

2007-12-13T20:23:00.000-06:00

Here is an index of all the posts in the Stuff On My Mind Category. There is a link to this on the right-hand panel. Enjoy!

Part 1: On Steve Irwin
Part 2: The Writer's Strike
Part 3: These Companies Should Be Bankrupt
Part 4: Golden Globes Predictions

"Stuff On My Mind" Part 1: On Steve Irwin

2007-12-13T19:32:00.000-06:00

More than a year after the death of one of the best people I've ever known or heard about, Steve Irwin, people are quickly forgetting about him - a person worth remembering if there ever was one. The tragedy is greater than it seems. What Steve brought to this world is unparalleled when compared to every other celebrity that ever existed. What he brought with him was simple - love. Because that is all he did throughout his life - he loved. He loved his family, he loved his children, he loved his fans (he called them friends), he loved everyone he met on his adventures, he loved all the animals in the world from the most poisonous to the most peaceful, and most importantly, he wanted to spread that love. Not once in his life did Irwin cross someone, or back-stab people to get where he was, he was simply too naive to do that. And it is that love and that naivete that made him a hero. Those are the ingredients for heroism - nos simple bravery. Irwin did not save a person from drowning in the Californian Gulf because he was brave - he saved that person because he was too naive to even consider the alternative. Irwin never stopped trying to save as many animals as he could, simply because he was too naive to consider what it would be like without them. There were no other options for him. Naivete and love. Another reason he was a hero for me was that he often cried openly and shamelessly. A quick search on YouTube can confirm that. Probably one of the most heartbreaking videos I've ever seen is Irwin crying over a crocodile that had lived in his zoo. The crocodile died of old age in its sleep, but Steve's love for it was too powerful. You can view this video here.
I cried too after I found out he died, not immediately though, because it took some time for it to sink in. But after seeing all the tributes and hearing all the stories, and watching an episode of Crocodile Hunter, I could not stop myself. I could not believe and still can't to this day, that the world lost such an important human being - a real life hero whose word and whose legacy is worth spreading each and every hour of our lives if we could.
The thing about Steve is that he accepts death as a normal part of life. I am sure that he is in Heaven right now and his only regret is that he left his children behind at such a young age. Steve does not regret being around sting rays on that fateful day. Steve does not regret his career and all the risks he took. He was not that type of person. He didn't sweat the small stuff, and he faced unfairness in his life the right way. I wish he didn't die. I wish I could turn on Discover Channel and watch him on one of his animal-saving adventures. I wish I could laugh with him as he saw animals do funny things. I wish I could meet him, which was always my dream.

I love you Steve Irwin, Rest in Peace.

- Stefan Vlahov

If you're interested in donating to Wildlife Warriors, please visit their site whenever you have the time.

Status Update...

2007-12-09T00:23:00.000-06:00

Because of school and work matters, I have not posted anything since sometime in mid-August. Fortunately, the semester is over, which means this blog will get a much needed revitalization. My goal is to start posting again sometime between the 13th and 15th of December. From that day on I will be posting "Tom Cruise Tribute" reviews only until December 30th. On December 31st or January 1st, I will post my "Year in Review" and I will continue "Tom Cruise Tribute" until it ends, hopefully sometime in mid-January. The nominees for the 2008 Academy Awards will be announced on Tuesday, January 22nd. I will hopefully be able to post my Oscar prediction blogs by February 3rd. On February 4th school starts again. Depending on my school schedule I will either not post anything until mid-May, or have one post a week during the semester.

A new series in this blog will be one titled "Stuff on my Mind". This may be film-related, but most likely it won't be. Basically, these short posts will contain my thoughts on current events and happenings that bother me enough that they are worth writing about. These posts will appear a few times per week.

Thank you for reading my blog and I hope you keep checking back in the future.