skip to main |
skip to sidebar
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
