skip to main |
skip to sidebar
In the movie industry, true greatness is realized when a film transcends both time and genre. A great film is such without any qualifications necessary. And, nearly 30 years on, Ridley Scott's Alien continues to assert itself in greatness. It's science fiction without stumbling upon cheesiness; it's artistic without being pretentious. Most importantly, it's a movie so enthralling that its run time of two hours feels more like mere minutes passing by.
Scott would again delve into the sci-fi realm with 1982's Blade Runner, but not with the same level of success. The latter was just as futuristic and its conflict just as intriguing, but in spite of it all, it just felt like a bit much. An elevated degree of open-mindedness is required to get through that film, whereas in Alien, Scott somehow weaves everything together to make you feel at home right from the get go - even on a spaceship several hundred years into the future. It also helps having clear-cut heroes and villains; having an alien as an antagonist seems a better fit than a robot playing and looking the part of a human.
Some issues in presentation down the stretch, as well as some expendable roles (Harry Dean Stanton and Veronica Cartwright can hardly be blamed for their characters' shortcomings) ensure that the film is, in fact, human, and thus not perfect. But in spite of these issues, Alien still holds its own better than the majority of modern films - sci-fi or otherwise. How? It keeps us not just interested, but glued - all throughout. If that's not the mark of a great movie, what is?
4 stars out of 4
9/10
It seems somewhat ironic that a Biblical story meant to warn of the dangers of misguided ambition could lead to a film comprised of just that - misguided ambition. In the Bible, the Tower of Babel built to connect the human race to the heavens - not, in fact, to worship God. (This little snag led to God's separation of people and languages and, essentially, the world as we now know it.) It tells of the dangers of doing great things for the wrong reasons, which is interesting to consider in the face of Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's film, Babel. The movie focuses on a hit-or-miss (mostly miss) collection of characters whose actions all but eliminate any possible sympathy we'd have for them. It's essentially the polar opposite of the biblical tale; forget factoring motives into the equation of greatness - there's nothing great about them to speak of.
Babel gives us four different stories, each with characters from different dramatically flawed backgrounds. After the American couple (Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett) - positively glamorous by comparison, we get more initially compelling personae like Chieko (Rinko Kikuchi), the Japanese deaf and mute girl who struggles for acceptance by those around her. It's all very emotional, and you'd almost be moved if part of the reason for her alienation weren't the fact that she's a complete pervert - sexually assaulting doctors and policemen one minute, only to make like Britney Spears and flash her...well, you know...the next.
The film's other factions are a set of rural Moroccan brothers and the family of the American couple's Mexican nanny (Adriana Barraza), but in the end, the only ones we care about are Pitt and Blanchett. Don't snicker; throughout the film, they're the only ones who remain completely innocent and likable. Sadly, no conflict is more dire than theirs - the result of truly stupid maneuvers by those in the remaining three sagas. Unfortunately, we shift back and forth so much to the ones we don't care about that we start to question why they're there, which ultimately diminishes the effect of those we do.
Misguided ambition? Let's examine Babel. The film came out just months after another (superior) cultural conflict film, Crash, had won Best Picture at the Oscars. The predecessor was a powerful film that delivered its message - yes, it actually had one - through a wide variety of truly compelling characters. That's where the greatness came from; even when characters were complete assholes, you wanted to know what happened to them - you cared enough to want to.
Babel, on the other hand, has no real message at all. The movie runs marathons without actually taking a step in any direction, and seems to have channeled all its ambition for the wrong reason - to continue on and possibly upstage the trend set by Crash. Sound familiar? The film's flawed characters and pretentious nature liken it to climbing the mythical tower by which it was inspired; it's a seemingly never-ending task, and its drawbacks far outweigh the rewards. Sure, it's nifty how they took a Biblical story into a modern context - but there's more to film-making than that, and Babel simply doesn't have it. Without a doubt one of the worst nominees for Best Picture that I can think of. Watch carefully, if at all.
1 star out of 4
3/10
On the surface, Richard Linklater's film, Dazed and Confused, appears to be little more than another entry into the teen party-comedy genre, of which films are usually a dime a dozen. But it's Linklater, so you know there'll be more to it than that, and in fact there is - all that mid-70s nostalgia! Filmed in 1993, but set in '76, the movie focuses on an epic party on the last day of school. (Sound familiar, Superbad fans? Aside from the classic rock backdrop of Dazed, the two could be the same film.) The plot's nothing to speak of, but it doesn't have to be; the movie's many moments of sheer hilarity and eye-opening depiction of high school life in the 70s have got its back.
I myself was not a teenager, or in fact ALIVE in the 1970s, so I can't comment on the film's accuracy. However, I will say that if this IS accurate, I'm glad to have grown up when I did. Sure, everyone seemed to be on decent terms with each other in this, the time before cliques. But that said, certain personae make ones teeth grind to pure sawdust, so maybe it's a blessing to not have to deal with the likes of Parker Posey's dictator-esque cheerleader Darla, for example. Or better yet, Ben Affleck's O'Bannion, the senior who flunked on purpose so as to be able to terrorize freshmen for one more year. Charming.
In spite of these missteps, the rest of the ensemble cast is pretty terrific, and delivers laughs from all angles. Most of those laughs come from one Ron Slater (Rory Cochrane), who's destined for that certain plateau of greatness alongside Mike Damone and John Bender for teen comedy roles that transcend their meandering genre. Having known many a lazy stoner in my life, I can not only confirm the accuracy of Cochrane's performance but assert it as absolutely hilarious. Want proof? Check out his speculation on alleged cult involvement and marijuana use by, yes, George Washington.
Not a GREAT film by any means, but for one I wasn't expecting to like, Dazed and Confused certainly delivers.
2.5 stars out of 4
6/10
Films must often be divided into two sub-categories. There are those that stand the test of time - not only enjoyable and praiseworthy upon first viewing, but many years ahead for and with future generations. Then there are the blockbusters, those movies made for summertime viewing - with action and mayhem often in the forefront and, in most cases, true quality on the backburner. With 2000's Gladiator, Ridley Scott gave us a gem that fit perfectly in the middle - all the roaring spectacle of a summer blockbuster in a film that could stand up and fight (no pun intended) among cinematic heavyweights of all generations.
The film occasionally gives us some effective emotional undertones throughout, but everyone knows the real reason to see Gladiator is its action sequences. Right from the get-go, we're thrust into battle as the Roman army, led by the general Maximus (Russell Crowe) under emperor Marcus Aurelius (the late, great Richard Harris) prepares to conquer the last resisting Germanic state to bring peace to the empire. While Crowe doesn't strike us as a natural hero, as both the scene and the film as a whole progress we discover that he's something far more valuable - an effective one. He has the gusto to slice and dice his way through the battles, while also maintaining dramatic sensibility in the calmer scenes.
His just and honorable conduct on and off the battlefield lead the dying Aurelius to bypass his own son, Commodus (Joaquin Pheonix) and declare Maximus the next ruler over Rome. This doesn't sit well with the power-hungry Commodus, and results in the son killing his father and forcing Maximus into exile.
What follows are two separate documents of rises to power. As Commodus tries various methods to divert the public eye from his shortcomings as a ruler, including re-introduction of gladiatorial games in Rome, Maximus works his way up as a slave and, eventually, a gladiator under his master Proximo (Oliver Reed). Through bonds formed with both his fellow slaves (Djimon Hounsou, Ralf Moeller) and his early match crowds, he's able to win over not just those around him, but us viewers as well - completely, in fact. "You have a great name," Hounsou's character Juba says at one point. "He must kill your name before he kills you."
The separation of the two primary characters works for a while, but is ultimately not as gratifying as their reunion. Maximus' reputation under the arena name "Spaniard" compels the emperor to demand a meeting with him. After this encounter, it's not just Commodus' villainous attempts to drag Maximus down (all handled rather admirably by Pheonix, if not a bit sissy-like at times) that keep our focus; the intertwining of their pasts and interactions between characters on both sides surpass that in both quantity and quality.
And as the movie's underwhelming last battle doesn't deliver, these such interactions end up saving the day, creating a fitting, emotionally grabbing ending. Actually, no. It's more than an ending; it's a conclusion, where an excellent film not only ends but caps off an epic journey, one that will undoubtedly be remembered among the greats in movies for years to come.
3.5 stars out of 4
8/10
Stale
-impaired in vigor or effectiveness
(See also: The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou)
It appears even Wes Anderson is not immortal. The offbeat genius responsible for the likable Royal Tenenbaums and The Darjeeling Limited misfires here, giving us a film devoid not only of his unique breed of hilarity but also of any reason to be viewed. What is meant to draw us in doesn't, and what is meant to make us laugh simply makes us question whether to get up and leave.
Bill Murray kicks on the autopilot as the washed up celebrity diver/filmmaker Steve Zissou. At the opening of the film, we see a screening of his newest film, during which his close friend and coworker Esteban gets eaten by a jaguar shark. Zissou's delivery of that news in the film is one of the few truly funny parts in The Life Aquatic - it's one of the few moments Murray breaks from his usual deadpan delivery, which - if not as reliable an approach - gives us something new to chortle at. At the post-screening press conference, he announces plans to seek revenge with his crew - Team Zissou - and kill the shark.
This revenge could have been a very enjoyable film-making pursuit, but instead comes off as a collection of wasted opportunities that get progressively worse as the film goes on. At one point, Team Zissou attempts to steal a myriad of expensive scientific equipment from Steve's rival, Alistair Hennessey (Jeff Goldblum, whose talent truly goes to waste), tripping the alarms in the process. What could have been a funny scramble against time, collecting anything and everything in sight comes and goes as two minutes of film we'd be better off without. A similar subplot situation with a pirate attack could have provided a spark to save the movie, but what we get is a bunch of explosions without any real added substance.
If anything keeps you watching, it's the technical aspects of the film. The production design is one of the few truly compelling parts of the movie, with both the on-location scenery and set filming particularly admirable. And through it all, the soundtrack - a collection of world-music adaptations of David Bowie songs - never fails to impress.
Unfortunately, that's just one piece of the pie, and a small one at that. The rest of The Life Aquatic is either untapped potential, wasted opportunities or some combination of both. The film takes "stale" to a new level, and should be viewed at one's own risk. Take heed; you've been warned.
1 star out of 4
2.5/10
In most cases, a film must be judged by how good its actors make it, but this is one of the rare occasions where it's judged based on how good it makes its actors. The success of On The Waterfront comes from how charismatic and powerful it makes the oft-overrated Marlon Brando. His performance as Terry Malloy in the film, if not a bit over-hammed at times, is the perfect example of the power of one against many, and ultimately redeems the film of its somewhat predictable plot. As the film unfolds, he transforms from just another ordinary dock worker, blindly loyal to the mob running his career, into someone extraordinary - someone who stands up for what's truly right. To say Brando completes the change all on his own would be giving him too much credit - Eva Marie Saint (Edie Doyle) and Karl Malden (the town priest, Father Barry) are equally important to his development along the way. If there's any question as to the film's impact along the way, the final scene will ultimately crush it. It is truly one of the most powerful scenes in film history, and cements the status of On The Waterfront as a film not to be missed.
3.5 stars out of 4
8.5/10
Sometimes, a movie defies all logic and just works. Zoolander is one of those movies. By no means a classic or even a classic of its genre, it is an excellent bit of satire about the modeling industry. Sure, the plot is a bit simple - at 89 minutes, it pretty much has to be. But in those 89 minutes, you'll get more belly laughs than most comedies. If anything, the movie's best means of identification is as one that showcases so many actors in their primes. Ben Stiller before tripe like Night at the Museum or The Heartbreak Kid; Owen Wilson before he became so hit-or-miss. And above all, Will Ferrell in one of his earlier big-screen roles - before he became Will Ferrell, the one-character wonder. Take their performances (along with some excellent cameos), some of the funniest one-liners you'll ever hear and pack it into something short and sweet, and you'll get Zoolander. You'll also get one hell of a time.
3 stars out of 4
8/10
Invincibility in the film-making industry is a rare thing. I'm starting to realize that with each new film I watch this summer. Even directors that produce classic after classic will have their duds - it's inevitable. And such is the case with the normally-reliable Danny Boyle. His latest film, the futuristic sci-fi adventure Sunshine simply doesn't achieve the same quality of his previous standouts Trainspotting and 28 Days Later. The reason? It's just too inconsistent, feeling at times like a great film and at others like a stinker.
In Sunshine, the year is 2057, and the Sun is dying. A group of astronauts is sent with a mission to deliver its payload and revive the star, saving humanity in the process. In this group, we have some Boyle veterans - Cillian Murphy and Rose Byrne - along with the ever likable Cliff Curtis, who contribute to the movie's enjoyable side. But at the same time, there is also Chris Evans, who should be kicked out of Hollywood and put into manual labor. The rest of the characters, unfortunately, receive too little screen time and thus we don't get that emotional attachment to them the way we traditionally do in Boyle films.
In these sort of sci-fi mission/adventure films, there will always be some conflicts, some more predictable than others. (The laws of movie-making with this genre deem it so.) But Sunshine takes that rule into overdrive. Around 2/3 of the way through, we get a plot twist so completely ridiculous that it makes M. Night Shyamalan look tame. It goes beyond unenjoyable; it's almost an insult to our intelligence. Its effect actually echoes one of Shyamalan's excursions - The Village, a film that's moderately enjoyable up until a certain point, at which point you're just too disgusted to watch anymore.
This is all something of a shame, considering that from a visual standpoint, the movie's a knockout. The depictions of the Sun and space in general showcases some top-notch CGI visuals. But as we all know, there's more to a movie than the visual aspect, and unfortunately it's in that land beyond that Sunshine falls flat.
1.5 stars of 4
4.5/10
With movies based on true stories, success is essentially a coin flip. Some movies (insert any Disney sports flick here) follow a tried and true formula, mixing mostly accurate storytelling with just a pinch of Hollywood sentimentality to create something with near universal appeal. Others, like this year's 21 for example, change nearly everything to try and sell themselves as blockbusters - and still fail. Considering this, along with the hit-or-miss nature of director David Fincher, Zodiac could very easily have been a colossal failure.
Fortunately, it isn't. In fact, Fincher's retelling of the Zodiac murders in late-1960's San Francisco is nothing short of mesmerizing. He handles one of the most famous unsolved cases in history with such finesse that you'd think him a field expert on the matter. A solid group of performances by an excellent ensemble cast, combined with a unique approach to telling the story don't hurt, either.
The first part of the film is Zodiac in his prime. We pick up after his second murder, as the case begins to accumulate national significance. But it's after we're thrust several years ahead when the film really gets its wings. Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), a lowly cartoonist at the San Francisco Chronicle in Zodiac's early days, undertakes the mission of identifying the killer for a book he's writing. At this point, the subject shifts to his obsession with uncovering Zodiac's identity - which essentially becomes more damaging than any of the actual murders themselves. Jake Gyllenhaal handles this performance with a grace that allows me to finally forgive his abysmal career starter, Bubble Boy. Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey Jr. have moxie, but Gyllenhaal ultimately steals the show.
At 157 minutes, the movie could have perhaps been trimmed a bit here and there. But the mysterious, thrilling nature of it all, combined with the excellent storytelling and production value, will keep your eyes glued to the screen. Zodiac is easily one of the best films of 2007. It's just a shame the Academy didn't realize that.
3.5 stars of 4
8/10
You'd be hard-pressed to find a Coen Brothers flick people can't enjoy on some level. Sure, not every film of theirs is a Fargo or No Country for Old Men. But even their offbeat, goofball experiments like Raising Arizona - and who can forget O Brother, Where Art Thou? - demand respect for extending the boundaries of what can be funny. The Big Lebowski is somewhere in the middle. With a plot so simplistic that even its own characters could figure it out halfway through, it's more a collection of hilarious bits than a coherent movie. Those bits come largely thanks to the hilarious chemistry between Jeff Bridges (as The Dude) and John Goodman, his pal Walter. Above all, you have to admire the way the Coens tie everyone and everything in to keep us interested. We'd rarely care whether a guy gets revenge after his rug gets peed on, but in The Big Lebowski, we'll pay attention.
2.5 stars out of 4
6.5/10
With science-fiction films, you usually find that there's one movie that defines the genre for their entire decade. The 70's had the first Alien; the 80's had Blade Runner. (And, OK, they both had the Star Wars saga.) In addition to massive success at the box office, these films were artistically innovative and, consequently, have a solid amount of staying power among movie fans. It took a while for the 1990's, but once the Wachowski brothers' The Matrix hit theaters in 1999, it became clear this sci-fi round table had found its newest addition.
The movie's success comes from numerous angles. It managed to make us temporarily forget the horrendous acting ability (or lack thereof) of lead man Keanu Reeves. It took a completely new idea and made its audience feel right at home, sending us right into the action without any patronizing introductory scenes. (The movie's long enough as is; they would NOT have helped.) Most importantly, it made us, in some cases, ask ourselves "what if?"
And unlike its sequels, The Matrix was set largely in the real world. Granted, there was a fair amount of special effects (it's sci-fi!), but not to the level of overkill of Reloaded or Revolutions. That's why the film is so captivating; it can take place in a normal environment (even though it was the "fake world" of the matrix), and STILL be unlike anything we've ever seen before.
That's the problem with most sci-fi flicks these days: they go so far out of their way to catch our eyes - to the point of becoming pure cheese - instead of realizing what would make them truly groundbreaking. The Matrix didn't make that mistake.
3 stars out of 4
7.5/10
Ah, the teen comedy. I'm always reminded of JD Salinger's Catcher in the Rye with this genre. Characters that have so much to say and to contribute to the story, and yet...nothing at all to merit any sympathy. Oh well, adolescence is a funny time in life.
In many ways, The Breakfast Club is a good movie from a bad genre, which puts it somewhere in the middle of the film spectrum. It has a goal and a message, but its delivery leaves something to be desired. Generally stiff acting and the feature of every 80's cliché in the book drag it down. It's not unlikable, but it makes you wonder why director John Hughes would set out to do a movie like this and then completely half-ass it.
Two of the stars redeem the poor acting of their counterparts. Ally Sheedy, as the basket case Allison Reynolds, is so annoyingly quirky that by the end of the movie, you actually kind of like her. And then there's Judd Nelson's charismatic asshole John Bender, cocky and confident in ways everyone wishes they could be deep down.
But to be honest, the best part of the movie is the theme song, Simple Minds' "Don't You (Forget About Me)." When a sentence like that gets uttered, you know there are some kinks to work out.
1.5 stars out of 4
4 out of 10
As critical as the current oil situation is, I'd still hate to be back in Upton Sinclair's time. Paul Thomas Anderson's screen adaptation of Sinclair's "Oil!" - There Will Be Blood - makes those sentiments so. His beautifully gritty film tells it like it truly was, without any Hollywood schmaltz. On the surface, it's about early 20th-century oil drilling, but at it's core, it's an intensely powerful representation of the ages-old adage about the root of all evil.
Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis, who truly earned his Best Actor award) runs an oil business with his son in California. After receiving information from young Paul Sunday (Paul Dano) about oil on his family's ranch, Plainview attempts to buy their land. This leads to further complications, as Paul's deeply religious twin brother Eli isn't as immediately eager to pursue business prospects.
What follows is a stunning combination of corruption, greed, religious fervor and, ultimately, degeneration. Anderson depicts the true nature of oil at the turn of the century: the money and power that followed with oil could, and did, do terrible things to people. But rather than cover up this blemish of our nation's history, Anderson has brought it to life, and gloriously so.
There's not much more to say - see this movie.
4 stars out of 4
9.25/10
