almonetts Reviews

Drive (I) (2011)

Suspenseful, Brilliantly Directed, Well-Paced, Oscar-Nomination Deserving

[10/10 · 25 October 2011]

Directed by Nicholas Winding Refn; Starring Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston, Christina Hendricks, Ron Perlman and Albert Brooks; Based on the book, "Drive" by James Sallis.

"Drive" takes its audience on a journey that is seemingly avoid of road signage. Fortunately, the movie is not a wreck! It challenges its audience through an an unrelenting, unapologetic vision: In doing good, or trying to make things right, does the consideration of moral consequence really matter? The answer is found by the end of the film (though subject to your own personal philosophy),

Refn uses Los Angeles as if he were Michael Mann (see "Heat" and "Collateral"). Anyone who has seen "Bronson" or the "Pusher Trilogy" can attest to the capability of this man to stage slow-burn or demonstrate patience (though perhaps to the chagrin of the audience) in accomplishing his design. The city, predominantly seen through a pane of glass whether a building window or windscreen, is harrowing. Its characterization is the foundation of the lives of these people who are called to make choices, which either they regret, have to run away from, or follow-through on.

The film is shrewdly edited, allowing extremely vivid depictions and downplaying others, leaving the narrative and actors to work in that space via languid film shots, contrasted with sporadic bursts of action. The use of natural lighting appropriately softens the film as needed, especially as we grow to understand what "drives" or is important to the characters played by Gosling and Mulligan. The narrow hallways, confined and cramped spaces, colored filters all give tremendous depth to the feeling that things are not perhaps as they seem.

It is yet is in these precisely the well-crafted moments of anxiety, despair, hope and shock that we the audience are placed squarely at the centre of the movie's heart, Ryan Gosling. Anyone who doubts whether this man can act, needs to see "Lars and the Real Girl" to put that question to rest. At once, he is charming, boyish, harmless, frail, strong, principled and purpose-driven! His mere act of chewing on a toothpick or putting on gloves conveys the essence of this character. Mulligan's role whilst important is grossly underplayed, but I think this is on purpose; I may have to revisit that assessment though, noting that lone other important female character (Hendricks) is underutilized, but effective. The movie really does belong to Gosling. Brooks and Perlman, are as usual very dependable and a delight to watch.

Further deliberating on Mulligan's performance, I have come to appreciate it, as this is where the film works on another level....its Soundtrack. The opening credits of the film looks like something out of the 80s, so I gather synthesized pop sounds (making great use of the fader, by the way), and lyrics would be the order of the day is the order of the day! The effect though is mesmerizing and even heightens/advances the relationship of Mulligan and Gosling and pre-supposes what could be possibly going through their heads at precise moments. In essence, operating almost like a musical!

This is truly film making at its finest and "Drive" is definitely one of the year's best films.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)

A beautiful, yet flawed realization of a classic tale.

[8/10 · 26 December 2005]

Directed by Andrew Adamson; starring Tilda Swinton, Jim Broadbent, Georgie Henley and others; and based on the beloved classic series by C.S. Lewis.

I distinctly recall the controversy generated the day it was announced that this film was going to be made, knowing fully well that C.S. Lewis' believed that his material would have been reduced to laughs in the face of limited technology. However, it is pleasing to report that his concern takes a back seat.

The story focuses on the Pevensie siblings (Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy) who are sent away to a reclusive and odd scholar in the countryside, to escape the perils of war. As typical kids, they wander around the house, trying best to entertain themselves. A game of hide and seek eventually sees the youngest (Lucy) going into a wardrobe, which transports her to the land of Narnia. Immediately, the the audience is besieged by a beautiful wintry Zion of sorts and a host of colorful characters which populate the landscape. However, as we come to learn there is a reason by the land is in a perpetual state of winter and there is a prophecy held to be the truth across the land, involving the children. Narnia, is ruled by a wicked witch (played with such imaginative flair and passion, it's disconcerting). Tilda Swinton, again proves her mettle and is terrific in the role. The kids form alliances with several species (all talking animals of sorts) and come quickly to accept their respective roles and seek an audience with Aslan (the Lion) to assist in what quickly becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I must admit in reading the books, I only caught onto the Christian themes very late (towards the very end of the first book). The movie dramatizes this to great yet still limited extent. Additionally, whilst the cast is led by the omnipresent Swinton, the kids (relatively new to screen) do not appear to remain in character from time to time. The strongest of the young cast is Edmund, a character that many would love to hate. Although his transfiguration on film is slowly progressive, we never really appreciate why he is that way; something which the book beautifully captures. This is one such "lost in translation" moments. Notably though, there are times when fans of the series can hear the beautiful words of Lewis captured on screen. Those who were also attracted by the distinctive British sensibility of the series, will also be a tad disappointed.

On the effects side, there are some really odd moments where you can easily discern "blue screen effects". One might wonder, that Director Adamson, would have done well enough to simply leave those scenes out. However, on the other hand, his deft helming of both Shrek movies, does give him a great foundation to produce the magic he finds on occasion.

While the movie never quite reaches epic proportions or cannot really be considered standard kiddie-fare, it does maintain a sense of wonderment and charm, which worked so well within the primary source material. Despite its flaws, the film is a beautiful realization of a classic tale and gives hope to the future development of the series for the big screen.

Cinderella Man (2005)

A beautifully crafted, well-told underdog tale about the triumph of the human spirit

[8/10 · 24 December 2005]

Directed by Ron Howard and starring Russell Crowe, Renee Zellweger, Paul Giamatti, Paddy Constantine and Craig Bierko.

The movie tells the true tale of James Braddock who turns to the boxing ring as a way of earning a living to ensure his family 's survival. Set in Depression-era New York, Howard quickly paints a grim picture of loss in the shape of wealth and separated families . The film resonates as if it were the Director' s personal story and largely on this tenet, it succeeds marvelously. The stunning screenplay of Akiva Goldsman (who scored an Oscar for "A Beautiful Mind " ) and Cliff Hollingsworth, chronologically unfolds Braddock' s career, against the Great Depression with the realization of the heart-breaking impact upon not only his family but the working class.

As with movies of this genre, its success depends largely on the credibility of circumstances surrounding the underdog, the actual underdog and the nemesis. The lead up to the big fight with the nemesis features Bierko in a devilish performance, which transcends being a mere cardboard cut out of a character. Crowe continues to astound with his consummate brilliance. Touches of subtlety, machismo, open emotion are all the right reasons why he will receive another Oscar nomination in the lead actor category. The audience never questions the heart of Braddock, and credit must go to Crowe and his Director for that.

Braddock is supported by his trainer (Giammati) and to a more reserved extent his wife (Zellweger). As if the script and directing were not enough, the supporting cast members themselves spar thus constantly improving each other' s game. Giammati is dynamite, brash, able to be both overwhelming motivational and a mouse, when necessary . The chemistry between Zellweger and Crowe hits you squarely in the gut, as we witness the sacrifices they both attempt to make in adjusting to the prevailing socio-economic conditions. She is strong for her kids and her husband, even though she dislikes his profession. However, retains her vulnerability and musings as she comes to realize the importance of Braddock to the working class and how different things could be, in a very mild, yet thoroughly involving subplot with Paddy Constantine.

Although the boxing ring encounters on at least two occasions seemed shoddily shot, the involvement of the audience by using radio coverage vs. ringside views, coupled with the ready buy-in of the characters, easily outweigh this minor transgression.

During and even after viewing this film, I was reminded of the equally terrific, Seabiscuit. On a technical level, Gary Ross' hand was steady in purpose, the script was well written and the supporting cast, turned in stellar performances. On a thematic basis, the destitution and despair of the Depression, the comeback story, the value of friendships/family, and the moral of perseverance against extraneous odds brought about the same range of emotions.

Alternatively titled, "Cinder-Biscuit" is Howard's best work to date and one of the year's great films.

The Constant Gardener (2005)

Intelligent, mesmerizing, hauntingly painful and powerful....

[10/10 · 18 November 2005]

Directed by Fernando Meirelles and starring Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz and adapted from the best-selling novel by John le Carre.

This film positions itself in almost every single genre of movie-making, except probably space odysseys, yet never steps out of bounds or gets tangled in its complex storyline.

Helmed by the Academy Award nominated director Mereilles (City of God), the film is meticulously constructed and coaxes career-best performances from Fiennes and Weisz. Set in Northern Kenya, Justin Quayle's (Fiennes) life is thrown into a guilt-ridden, remorseful, conspiracy infused, complicated mess, when he is informed of his wife's (Weisz) death.

What ensues is an unrelenting pursuit of the truth in the belief of love; the stark brutality in the preservation of status quo, within a country torn by civil strife and poverty; a stinging commentary on corporate ethics; and unparalleled political intrigue. The film's central theme of finding oneself, is slowly and subtly revealed as we bear witness to the drama.

Fiennes' performance is soulful, understated and heart-breaking. Weisz injects her role with dynamism, self-determinism and a big heart. Their love story smolders within the grandiose work of cinematographer Cesar Charlone, and the expert punctuated visual style of the director. Each scene is constructed to deliver a message through the use of flashbacks and interruptive frames which begin at one moment, then end later on in the film.

The Constant Gardener is intelligent, mesmerizing, hauntingly painful and powerful film making. It is definitely one of the year's best films and should easily rank as one of the best political conspiracy thrillers ever featured on the big screen.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)

Shrewdly written, expertly delivered comic film-noir

[10/10 · 17 November 2005]

Directed and co-written by Shane Black; based on a novel, "Bodies Are Where You Find Them" written by Brett Halliday; and starring Robert Downey Jnr, Val Kilmer and Michelle Monaghan.

A terrific opening credit sequence easily sets up the audacity and chagrin of the film for an appreciative audience. In essence, these are the reasons why you need to see this movie: the razor sharp wit, shockingly fast-paced and hysterical dialogue, pulp-fiction-esquire vibe, its pure cheesiness and the cynicism of a beat up old paperback detective novel.

Got you yet? Alright, maybe an explanation of the seemingly simple plot is warranted. It begins with a ridiculously funny set up resulting in Downey's character being paired up with Kilmer to observe the latter in his job as a private detective. They hook up with a down-on-her luck actress who brings a case for the sleuths. This synopsis constitutes gross misrepresentation on my part as things get remarkably complex. How so? Well, even the lead the character (who also is purposefully pathetic as narrator) takes time out within the movie to remember where he is in telling the story. There are even snippets of dialogue where the characters attempt to fill in the gaps or actually remind themselves of what has happened thus far in the movie.

Downey, Kilmer and Monaghan are all caricatures drawn from popular references of literature, movies and art. All however, are larger than life, exhibit great chemistry and for a movie buff, it is heaven to witness the self referential exercises and hear the narrator shred every narrating convention applicable. Downey's performance is remarkable (neurotic, comic, vulnerable and charming). I have never seen Kilmer in such a well-defined, uproarious piece of work. Monaghan is also integral to the trio and shines exuding a brash, fighting and sexy appeal. She brought back fond memories of early Kathleen Turner and Rene Russo. The fact that her look screams Renee Zellweger, is not a bad thing either.

Black became famous in the 1980s for writing the hit buddy movies: Lethal Weapon, The Last Boy Scout and The Long Kiss Goodnight. As a first time director, he does well keeping the frenetic pace and allowing the audience to catch up only to get lost time and time again. The style is so disarmingly effective, that at times I shook my head in confusion or found my hands against my mouth, agape in shock. I also think that in creating such a brilliant script that Black may have blacklisted himself in Hollywood for mirroring its supposed fame and glamor and exposing its not too pretty side. His one-liners and connected sub-plots are not typical and Kilmer and Downey make magic with their banter and clinical delivery.

All the ingredients of a pulp-noir novella can be found, even employing a structure of chapter-type headings within the movie. Parallel story lines unfold and given plot assumptions are turned over, always with achingly funny results. Even the clichés are clever e.g. a tough guy predictably crashes through a glass table, or body after body turns up, to haunt the characters.

I strongly recommend the movie, given the talent of Downey and Kilmer. Downey should be honored with a Lead Actor Oscar nomination; while Kilmer deserves a Supporting Actor nod. It thrilled me to see them both in their element, as I was on the verge of disavowing them as marquee/box-office draws. The screenplay should also attract Oscar consideration.

One of the year's best films and one of those rare movies where you'll consistently find something new to laugh at, when viewed each of a dozen times.

Serenity (2005)

Serenity soars in re-defining this genre of films

[10/10 · 4 November 2005]

Written and Directed by Joss Whedon and starring Nathan Fillion, Gina Torres and Chiwetel Ejiofor.

There is a point in the movie when a principal character says to himself, "I am a leaf on the wind, watch me soar!"

Seemingly applying this mantra, Serenity does indeed soar as it aims to re-define its own genre.

The film tells the tale of a band of renegades on board their spaceship (Serenity) and is based on the very short lived and unjustifiably canceled Fox TV series, "Firefly". It is about five hundred years in the future; Earth is overpopulated and we have begun to take up residence in another galaxy, made habitable by our own designs; the interplanetary system and galaxies are recovering from a brutal civil war. Mal (wonderfully played with comic and action-hero gusto by Fillion) is the captain and his crew consists of other characters who in some shape or fashion owe their life to him, since they were all on the losing end of the war. The nature of the conflict stemmed from the totalitarian measures adopted by an intergalactic government "The Alliance" to promote its principles of unity and peace at any cost. This synopsis is expertly captured within the first five minutes of the movie, and gives a great introduction to anyone who has never seen the series.

The ship picks up two fugitives, one of whom has a secret which tests the mettle of the crew and the metal of the rickety ship, time and time again. The action sequences are entertaining. Most notably are the comparative differences to other space-type movies: the bravura sense of style, extremely witty dialogue and quips, the comradery of the cast and blisteringly relevant politico-social commentary.

Masquerading as a Space-Western, it is cheeky positing, is this really the "final frontier"?. Serenity espouses philosophy from great poets to fortune cookies and characters in venting their frustrations, use a very old (probably bastardized) Chinese dialect. The cast is well lead by Fillion and superbly supported by Torres ( Alias) and Ejiofor (Dirty Pretty Things, Love Actually). Ejiofor, is splendid as "The Operative" from the Alliance.

The TV series is already considered to be a cult classic and the movie should easily bring additional fans on board. Part of the fun for both old and new viewers is the ability to connect the dots in the various back stories. I'd be so bold as say that Whedon's ability as a writer is never to be questioned and he adeptly teases, gives new character information, and involves the viewers in considering the fate of each character. Anyone familiar with his work on Buffy and Angel, knows him as an expert, in this regard. He packs more story in the film's 120 minutes than George Lucas did for the entire of Episodes 1 through 3. His direction though reveals one or two made for TV moments, but this doesn't distract from the quality viewing and fun on screen.

The film is not just another sci-fi movie. It is a pity that many have not seen it on the big screen, but given its status as one of the best popcorn flicks of the year, it will be a must own DVD, upon release.

A History of Violence (2005)

A fiercely intense, thought-provoking, drama which questions the notion of violence

[10/10 · 5 October 2005]

Directed by David Cronenberg and starring Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello, Ed Harris, William Hurt and Ashton Holmes. Based on the graphic novel by Jack Wagner and Vince Locke.

First up, I am a Cronenberg fan. His films, as well as those of David Lynch, have always held a unique distinction in my mind due to a combination of resulting reactions (on my part) after viewing them. These reactions are usually rooted in perplexity, inspiration and outright distress. For each of his films I have disliked ("Existenz", "Camera"), I have loved at least two others ("Spider", "Crash", "The Fly", "Scanners", "The Dead Zone"), which is not a bad ratio, come to think of it.

"A History of Violence" centers on the Stall family who live in Middlebrook, Indiana. They are a picture perfect family in an equally idyllic town, where everyone looks out for one another. This serenity is shattered by a seemingly random act of violence, which turns Mortensen's character into a local celebrity. He is a reluctant hero, shying away from all the publicity, seeking the solace and retreat of his family. A series of events, each with tremendous subtext, unfold with ferocity. The relative composure afforded by calm of the town and the peacefulness of the perfect family becomes undone as Mortensen questions a startling revelation. The reactions (of himself, his family and community) serve as compelling parables for modern times. It is here that the film truly shines, posing several pervasive questions: Does violence breed violence? How easy has it become for us to accept violence? Do we as a society have a predisposition to violence as a means to reach a solution?

Cronenberg is sensational in the way he presents the above theses. Blending gruesome imagery with a pointed matter-of-fact sensibility, witty dialogue and slow purposeful camera work, grounds each actor with the material and creates a high-caliber uniformity in performance. Each scene holds a tremendous sense of foreboding, but not a single frame is unplaced or wasted. There are a few alarming moments (which I will not share), but the compelling narrative and the consistently overwhelming performances throughout are riveting yet excruciating to behold.

Mortensen is nuanced, commanding, conflicted and terrifying. Bello is sexy, strong and a beautiful mess. Their scenes together are touching, powerful, emotionally raw and intense. The transition in the relationship of Mortensen and Holmes (his son) is exceptional and Holmes has a bright future ahead of him. Ed Harris is scary, vicious and cynical. He should find company in the Best Supporting Actor category come Oscar time, as William Hurt's performance elevates the film even further. While I would love to say more, I will leave it at that. His character is callous, ruthless and his performance reverberates on screen.

As the film drew to a close I was not yet fully aware of its impact, until the brilliantly masterminded and constructed final scene, which juxtaposed the central themes against your own closely held ideals/morals.

Thus far, I believe it to be the Best Picture of 2005. Oscar nominations for Best Actor, Actress, Supporting Actors (Harris and Hurt), Cinematography, Adapted Screenplay, Director and Picture are expected.

Red Eye (2005)

Check in for this high-flying suspense thriller from Mr. Craven

[9/10 · 2 October 2005]

Directed by Wes Craven, written by Carl Ellsworth and starring Rachel McAdams and Cillian Murphy.

Whilst being an insanely convoluted thriller (when it does not need to be), the film bares all very early on and features genuinely suspenseful moments courtesy Mr. Craven. It is also complemented with top notch performances by McAdams and Murphy (in the lead roles) whose surrender to the material and surely maddening director's requests, ably assist in maintaining the film's momentum. Interestingly, the sparse yet efficient use of the supporting characters played by Brian Cox and Jayma Mays was notably effective.

In typical Craven fashion, we are served up with two character arch- types: the strong-willed female and crazy loon . However, although McAdams' character is placed under extreme situations and happen-stance, she never overacts or overreacts. On the point of plausibility, you would probably do the same thing she does if you were in the situation. As a result, you easily root for her during this ordeal. In Murphy' s case (the crazy loon), he is chillingly good and adds a degree of charm, of which he totally employs to his advantage. My wish for him though is not to be typecast, as he does evil/bad so well.

Although the majority of the film does take place on a plane, it is well paced and taut. Employing savvy editing and extreme close-ups, tension levels to creep upward and at times explode, enabling Craven to sidestep a heap of clichés. Ellsworth, (who I believe is a first time screenwriter) while giving in to a few of them, equally tosses several of them right out of the emergency exits. This in itself is a pleasant surprise within several "what- the-hell-was-that? " moments. This film is certain to rejuvenate the director 's reputation and career in the thriller genre.

Undoubtedly Summer 2005' s best thriller.

Dark Water (2005)

A good psychological drama, which never quite realizes on its potential to be suspenseful

[7/10 · 17 September 2005]

Directed by Brazilian film maker, Walter Salles (The Motorcycle Diaries, Central Station) and starring Jennifer Connelly, Dougray Scott, Pete Postlewaite, Tim Roth and John C. Reilly.

Once again the marketing people bill the film as being a horror, when at best it is a mysterious, dark, brooding psychological thriller.

The movie presents Connelly as a struggling, recently separated mother. She wants the best education for her daughter within given constraints and, moves into an apartment building on Roosevelt Island, which is in close proximity to a good school. She quickly grabs apartment 9F, after a great sleazy hustle by John C. Reilly (the manager of the building). The building's exterior holds nothing to the damp, mossy-looking, creaky internal infrastructure. Almost immediately the building's character creeps the viewer out. Salles and team obviously take great pride in infusing the atmosphere with minute details (even a questionable superintendent).

Connelly's character holds some deep-rooted anxieties though, which are exacerbated by the challenges she faces with a leaking apartment, strange on-goings in the upstairs apartment, the bitter custody battle and a boring job. She is on screen for over 90% of the time and is magnificent, reaching great depth in getting the film's audience to see things through her eyes. Each character also bears secrets, which contributes to the drama. That Connelly succeeds so well in doing this, is to both her and Salles credit, because the psychological meter on the film kicks into high gear, befitting fans of Hitchcock and other suspense greats.

Salles pacing of the movie works to have the audience soak up the ambiance. However, it is also the movie's greatest failing. I am certain that he knows how to scare his audience and everyone expects it, however this jolt never comes. At some point in the movie, the build up of suspense stops all together, without ever reaching a peak. The sub-plot takes the now typical Hideo Nakata (The Ring) story arch and that feeling of betrayal sets in.

Remarkably, this film is positioned within a summer-fare of action and comedy. While a good drama, the level of suspense never realizes on its potential. The movie is slow and all about mood. Viewing is only recommended if you are a fan of stylized film making.

The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005)

Extremely humorous and full of heart

[10/10 · 11 September 2005]

Directed by Judd Apatow and co-written with the movie's leading man Steve Carell, the 40-Year Old Virgin is extremely humorous and full of heart.

Andy Stitzer (Carell) has never done the deed and it becomes known to three co-workers, who make it their duty to correct this anomaly. Andy prefers to compensate by creating seemingly healthy obsessions such as collecting action figures (including the Six Million Dollar Man's boss), gaming and the like. Just in case you forgot, he is 40-years old. As we come to learn through flashbacks, he really has tried, but just has not been "successful".

Until now Carell's possible career highlights have been as a "Daily Show" correspondent and the lead on one of the most under-looked and great groan-inducing comedies, "The Office" (American version). He has also stole scenes in "Anchorman" and "Bruce Almighty". This role showcases his expert timing, charisma, knowledge of constructing a joke and romantic/dramatic reach.

Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen and Romany Malco are cast as the co-workers and eventual buddies who insist on passing on their collective wisdom, baggage and mistakes. Each character is perfectly honed, project great matter of fact sensibility and hilarious in every scheming scene/disaster. The stage is then set for two crazy encounters, which continue to reinforce his decision to remain a virgin for all eternity. I must mention Leslie Mann (the drunk), Elizabeth Banks (the sex freak), Jane Lynch (the boss) and the elder Indian co-worker, each of whom generates great laughs and support in their roles.

Andy insists that he will do this the right way, which at once is ambitious...finding a perfect woman, building a relationship and making it work (I should take some notes). His buddies come to realize that there is a degree of merit to the approach, which they have come to have forgotten through their encounters over the years. He believes he has found this in Trish, played by the always stellar and exuberant Catherine Keener. Do you want to know why this woman is a star in my eyes? Witness their first encounter...she is effortlessly vulnerable, insecure and sexy. Their chemistry is wonderfully playful, sincere and believable given both their characters' background.

Whilst in one case the film resorts to a low-brow gross out gag, it doesn't allow the crude and now clichéd driven Farrelly-brothers set-ups to ensue and overtake its huge heart. The movie is also insightful as can be seen in the expertly written send-up anti-gay-bashing scene " I know you're gay because..."

Ultimately, the movie is a brilliant piece of comedic work and is set to a great accompanying soundtrack, which itself strikes a euphoric chord. However its true worth can be seen in the way it is elevated by the writers' projecting our own bouts of sexual anxiety, their ability to construct jokes beyond a level of crass running gags and the credibility of every single cast member's performance, especially the genius Steve Carell.

Wedding Crashers (2005)

A crudely constructed comedy that delivers genuine laughs most times

[7/10 · 3 September 2005]

Directed by David Dobkin; starring the comic duo of Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson, Crashers is a crudely constructed comedy that delivers genuine laughs most times, seemingly due to the improvisational nature of its stars and the director's willingness to let them run wild.

The two play divorce mediators who live for weddings and the opportunity to womanize. They perfect the art of crashing weddings using great lines, dance moves and plays to bed the ladies. The movie presents almost every single wedding cliché and destroys them, with often hilarious results. Some of the best scenes are contained within these wedding montages.

Vaughn shines, as he is tossed into a series of unfortunate scenarios, which are almost uncomfortable to watch, but painstakingly delivers good laughs. When paired up with Isla Fisher, the movie's laugh factor hits a great high.

The film detours just after the first half with a dramatic/romance angle, which works on the sole merit of Wilson and Rachel McAdams' (The Notebook, Red Eye) chemistry. However, for a movie which debunks a lot of clichés, it is disappointing to see it go down the formulaic path with this story arch. The jokes become few and far between. Admittedly, witnessing the talent of McAdams compensates in this regard, but not enough. At two hours and then some, the movie becomes weighty.

While it delivers on some laughs and allows the cast sufficient leeway, under a more skillful director and a tighter script, this may have evolved into a comedy classic.

Batman Begins (2005)

A triumphant infusion of character and return to grandeur for the franchise

[9/10 · 31 August 2005]

Tim Burton's masterful take on the first Batman installment was wildly entertaining, boasted a terrific cast led by Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson and Kim Basinger and a musical score courtesy Prince. After witnessing the cahoots of Schumacher's cheesy and lesser films, Batman Begins marks a terrific return to form for the franchise. Helmed by Christopher Nolan, the indie genius behind Memento and Insomnia, the blockbuster is given a restored sense of purpose, drama and bravura. The mere fact that the audience is not upset by the absence of Batman in full get up until the third act of the film, is a testament to all involved. This movie is about Bruce Wayne.

Batman Begins quickly revisits what is already known by audiences, as a kid he witnessed the murder of his parents and is guilted/haunted by this;and he leads a tortured, almost reclusive existence. At a young age, Wayne drops out of Princeton heads to the Himalyas, is taken on as a protégé of Ducard (Liam Neeson). There we find out how he learns to fight and is asked to join the League of Shadows (a secret society of assassins), led by Ra's Al Ghul (the massively under-utilized Ken Wantabe). However, his morality is tested by a specific assignment, which discredits him in the League's eyes. Returning to Gotham, he encounters romance courtesy Katie Holmes and stumbles across a bit of corporate intrigue, as he tries to regain control of Wayne Enterprises. The film is not bogged down by its stellar cast as we meet his support team of Alfred (played with great comic chops by Michael Caine), Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) and Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman....who proves he can not only do bad guy roles).

Christian Bale as Batman is stunning. His looks, charm, poise screams Bruce Wayne, coupled with his acting prowess, he infuses the character with an air of sadness, grave intent and vulnerability. The film's narrative is steadfast and engrossing. The best surprise is the film's wonderful philosophical punch, with lines that can easily serve as "Thoughts for the Day". The film was also understatedly funny, in terms of Wayne's transformation into a superhero! The suit is cumbersome and watching him try to assume and maintain his double identity, conjures a twisted sense of humor. The darkness of this hero returns as he gets his vengeance by dealing with a crime boss (Tom Wilkinson), who is attached to the Wayne murders. We also get an all too contrived plot introducing the menacing Scarecrow (deviously played by Cillian Murphy), involving the "poisoning" the the city's water supply with an induced hallucogen. The final action sequence bored me, since I was much more captivated by the unraveling insight into the Bat's persona.

The movie ranks right up there with X2, Superman and Spiderman 2 as one of the better superhero movies ever made.

9/10

Crash (I) (2004)

A searing examination of contemporary life, filtered through racism and several derivatives

[10/10 · 17 July 2005]

Written and Directed by Paul Haggis (writer of Million Dollar Baby) and starring an ensemble cast that includes Sandra Bullock, Don Cheadle, Matt Dillion, Michael Pena, Thandie Newton, Terrence Howard, Brendan Fraser and Jennifer Esposito.

The movie is set in Los Angeles and presents several interconnected vignettes of contemporary life (over a day and a half) filtered through the lens of racism and several derivatives.

The movie will deservedly face a barrage of criticisms, chief of which is its ability to manipulate the audience to a state of being very unsettled. This is done using a series of observations and it works well. However, given how they are intensely dramatic and thematic, are these observations realistic?

This notwithstanding, the movie's thematic elements get the message across: racism, stereotyping, class lines, all result in faulty human communication and interaction. The film rolls along quickly advancing whether you recognize it or not, everyone is affected.

The entire cast is superb, probably because of their belief in the material and Haggis' command. However there are a few stellar performances, most notably: Matt Dillion, Thandie Newton, Michael Pena, Chris "Ludacris" Bridges and Ryan Phillipe. The "Crash" moments of these central characters (always two-sided) are very well executed, despite the fact it personally ached to watch at times.

The film employs Los Angeles like Michael Mann would do, establishing the city as a character. It is edited like a Robert Altman or Paul Thomas Anderson flick and Haggis takes his time in totally dismissing the notion of subtlety and clichés, resulting in heightened dramatic tension, even though on occasion, the narrative makes absolutely no sense.

These flaws are thoroughly excusable, because the movie has great ambition, intent and heart. It is one of those rare films that promotes discussion about a very real issue. Further, the presupposition that we all use these filters and that you really may not know yourself, cements the movie's poignancy when we realize the possible consequences of using them.

Kung Fu Hustle (2004)

Wildly entertaining homage and satire of a great genre

[9/10 · 31 May 2005]

I often marvel that stars like Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Jet Li and Chow Yun Fat are immensely talented in terms of their acting coupled with physical prowess. I now humbly add another, Stephen Chow, to that esteemed list.

The movie is co-written, co-produced, directed and features Chow, who is a huge star back in China and who honestly became known to me via the quite silly, yet thoroughly entertaining Shaolin Soccer. Set in 1930s Shanghai, it is not your typical Chinese "kung fu" or "kick- up" flick. It goes beyond that, through insane sight gags and gimmicks, all of which are incredibly funny, totally ridiculous, and intensely action-driven. The movie is definitely a homage to the genre, given how well it is done, but I find it satirical, as well. Where else can you find a character who smokes like a chimney, even when she is fighting and the cigarette, never once falls out her mouth? How convenient that the skills demonstrated by some of the characters seemed learnt on the spot? It really requires that you check you r sensibilities at the door and your pulse once in a while, as it races along. The only way to further describe it is as a virtual live-action cartoon, filled with such appealing caricatures as opposed to characters, you 're bound to oblige them ninety (90) minutes of your life. There is so much to say about this movie, but I should not for fear of ruining it. The juxtaposition of the violence of the gang , the grace of the battle and yes folks, dance sequence(s) at the most inopportune moments, is plain brilliance.

Chow plays a lean, wannabe member of one of the most infamous and deadly gangs in Shanghai, the Axes. He and his buddy go into Pigsty Alley pretending to be members of the Axes and find themselves in a heap of trouble, when the real Axes take offense to their foul ups and the impact on their reputation. As with all good films of this genre, there is a love story, test of courage and redemption of honor . The twist though, is that the philosophy and humor are not readily apparent, because you are visually arrested by the glorious choreographed fight sequences. The movie does not let this on that easily though, as it is only when it wraps up, you realize how much more was going on.

This is one flick which is destined for cult status!!

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Lucas reclaims his cinematic legacy in fine fashion

[9/10 · 31 May 2005]

This has got to be one of the most difficult reviews I have ever written, but let me explain. I wrestled with myself as to the rating of this movie and cheated somewhat in determining the final rating. While I always assess a movie on its own merit, I had to compare this with " Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back" which will forever remain one of the best films I have ever seen and a solid 10/10 . While I'm not a Star Wars fanatic, I do appreciate great movie making and the original trilogy (Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and The Return of the Jedi) stands as a testament of what one man's imagination and vision can accomplish. That being said, I remember cringing and questioning as to why would George Lucas' do another trilogy, to serve as a prequel of sorts? The answer was remarkably simple. The first trilogy is synonymous with popular culture; is one of the most commercially successful franchises in history and admittedly or not, is a reminder of our youth and changed the landscape of modern cinema as we know it.

My initial foreboding was confirmed though, after witnessing the mind-numbing chaos that was "The Phantom Menace" and the overbearing, force-fed, unintelligible plot devices used in "The Attack of the Clones". Yet, even amidst these huge creative blunders and disappointment, my excitement for "The Revenge of the Sith" was still largely resonant. I needed for "Revenge of the Sith" to be great and restore my faith in Lucas and the series, which was so tarnished by Episodes I and II. The biggest challenge I thought facing Lucas was an audience knowing the direction/path of the movie (we all know what happens at the end!). After leaving numerous loose ends upon concluding Episode II, a story with such great weight would have been required to anchor this installment. This he finds in the transformation of Anakin Skywalker to Lord Vader; a universal-political commentary (which echoes a very important message for our times); and Anakin's deteriorating relationships with his mentor Obi Wan and beloved Padmé Amidala.

The movie is unashamedly an action-piece, containing some of the most spectacular sequences and light saber clashes. While there are times when it seems excessive, you can't help cheer because you're back in 19-whenever, when you first saw this kind of action, and then without the use of wires and digitization! The pace of narrative propels the film along, set against exquisite digital imagery which is meticulously woven, without fault, into the fabric of each scene. The opening sequence and our first look at Kashyyyk (the Wookies' Planet) is all at once beautiful, breathtaking and groundbreaking, even in the face of being threatened with wooden and sullen lead performances. George Lucas is the consummate Director, carefully trying to craft a film, in which he knows, he'll be tested by ardent fans, in terms of continuity between Episodes III and IV and the rest of the series for that matter . He is at the forefront of this year's Oscar race, in that category and on technical merit. While it can be argued that his script work is weak, like it or not, he has once again redefined motion picture history. Even if you are not an avid fan, you are constantly rewarded with linkages throughout the series , if you look and listen closely enough, the first, second, heck even fifth time. I must also admit, hearing the theme music utilized in such grandiose fashion as it was in Episodes IV-XI, along with seeing Chewy lift Obi onto his back, and Lord Vader's first Imperial March on entering the Jedi Temple gave me chills .

Even amidst the bad acting, there is an absolutely spell- binding turn by Ian McDiarmid as Chancellor Palpatine. The transformation of Anakin is largely dependent on this un-nerving, sneaky, tour-de-force performance. There is a particular word, which I want to use to describe his character, but it would be a plot revelation for some, so I will not. He is magnificent. While Christensen does have a few great acting moments, the psychological dilemma through which his character must evolve, is not fully conveyed and could have easily been rendered the movie an absolute wash-out, if not for McDiarmid's supporting performance. An honorable mention must also be given to Yoda and R2-D2, who outshine, Jackson, McGregor, Smits and even Portman when on screen.

There are some extremely haunting scenes which reinstate the emotional and philosophical core of the first three Episodes and which was as good as dead in Episodes I and II. One in particular is the birth of Lord Vader. The care taken to edit this scene with an equally pivotal one, is astounding and expertly done and is one of the most poignant and poetic pieces of film making EVER. It is made even more meaningful, given the audience's knowledge of the revelation made at the end of " The Empire Strikes Back" Two other scenes provide a scathing indictment on politics, power, democracy and the use of military force . The first is summarized by a line expertly delivered by Portman, "This is how liberty dies….to thunderous applause" and the other occurs at the onslaught of the climatic battle between Anakin and Obi Wan.

I am thrilled that Lucas has not disappointed in delivering this film Yes, there are inane one-liners, Lucas' ability to write for screen is questionable at times, the actors seem out of place in their delivery and there are more than a few ridiculous moments, but the movie is a remarkable accomplishment in terms of everything we have come to know, expect and love about the series. To that, I'd say the Force is with us.

The Forgotten (2004)

I am supposed to live my life with a "forgive and forget" mindset, but with this preposterous movie, I'll opt for the latter alone......I simply cannot be forgiving of this one. (Spoilers Contained

[3 October 2004]

Spoilers Contained below.

Starring Julianne Moore, Dominic West, Gary Sinise, Alfre Woodard and Anthony Edwards; Directed by Joseph Ruben.

I'll start by noting that there is an interesting trend with a few recent, groundbreaking movies (e.g. Memento, Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind). It is the movie's predication on questioning the validity of a memory. While this movie attempts to join that exclusive club, it fails miserably.

Credit to the editors of the movie who have produced one of the most gripping and effective trailers I have seen in years. From that alone, we discern that Moore's character (Telly Paretta) seemed to have lost her son (fourteen months ago) and everyone is telling her that she is crazy, since she never had one. The premise is intriguingly established/confirmed within the first fifteen minutes of the movie, given the credible performance by Moore, notwithstanding the quality of the material, as we come to realize.

Sinise plays the psychiatrist helping Moore through her problem, figuring that she is enhancing memories of an unborn son, which she lost due to a miscarriage. In other words, she's suffering some post traumatic syndrome, something or the other. All tangible evidence of the existence of her son (provided early in the set up) disappears, leaving the audience hanging to great effect.

As the movie proceeds, we are introduced to West's character, who apparently has also lost a daughter. After having convinced West of his forgotten loss, the two pair up to find their kids and escape evil, inept and dopey Federal agents, amidst a supposed conspiracy theory. They enlist the help of the surefire Alfre Woodard (who plays an NY detective). Woodard, as usual sizzles within every scene she is involved and as a testament to the centrifocal theme, believes intuitively that Moore is telling the truth, because, why else would a mother, create and retain seven years of vivid memories of a child?

The movie liberally borrows from a Scully-centered X-Files theme - the powerful bond of motherhood. However, its development is more like a throwaway episode, lost in the muddle of what happens thereafter: a series of long winded car and foot chases, slow paced character development, confusing situations, a forced narrative loaded with unbelievable and clearly illogical plot drivers. In essence, the result is a frustrating, tedious movie-going experience.

What's the movie really about then? Is it a Government conspiracy? Is she really crazy? Is it about the ethereal connection of motherhood? Is it a family drama about how to deal with losing someone? This is one of the movie's chief flaws. It tries for all of the above and delivers on none.

The length of time the film takes to reveal it's supposed purpose, is yet another criticism. I'm really surprised that people weren't walking out of the theatre by the third act. A good thriller, just like a striptease is supposed to build, heighten tension, keep you motivated and interested in the payoff. The result in this case, is the force-feeding of an implausible, still improperly explained reasoning for the mysterious happenings by an ominous stranger (purposefully excluded from the above write up), tied up within some maddening pseudo-psycho-scifi mumbo jumbo. Interestingly though, the length of time the movie takes to go from the category of good potential to rubbish, is a couple of nanoseconds and well within the first act of the movie.

Then there is the ending, which really left me speechless. I simply surrendered at that time, recognizing that it would have been too much of a challenge for the screenwriters to have instead dealt with the issue of losing a loved one.

The only other movies I remember the Director (Ruben) doing is the cheesy, creepy, underrated yet totally effective "The Stepfather" and "Sleeping with the Enemy". The latter movie was also mind-numbingly slow and obvious. However, managed to emerge from its dreariness with stand out performances by Julia Roberts and Patrick Bergin. His use of relatively cheap special effects in this film works. The camera shots, using elevated angles (roof top views), is intentional as we see when the movie advances. However, both become overused to his discredit. James Horner's score contributes to the heaviness of the theme and at times overpowers the already miserably weak film.

It is sad that this is Moore's first headlining movie-star vehicle. While it will do well in the first couple of weeks, word of mouth is going to kill this movie quickly (I can only hope). She is capable of far better (see "Safe" and "Far From Heaven"). However, she seems to have forgotten what a good script looks like or can do for a career and a movie. I know I am supposed to live my life with a "forgive and forget" mindset, but with this preposterous movie, I'll opt for the latter alone......I simply cannot be forgiving of this one.

0.5/10 - for two genuinely jump out of your skin moments...the two others are monotonous.

The Village (2004)

an interesting concept but the film fails to deliver on the premise

[21 August 2004]

M. Night Shyamalan, presents an interesting concept but miserably fails to deliver on the promise of an excellent trailer. Then again, the trailer did do its job i.e. get my but into the seat. However, the primary reason for the movie's trapping lies squarely on the shoulder of its director. Undoubtedly a talent, he can set perfect moods from carefully constructed scenes and camera angles (see Signs) and has modernized Hitchcock's style of movie making. However, audiences have come to expect a surprise ending or twist. As such many are going to head into the theatre with the intention of figuring out what is the twist. You can almost do that immediately in the first few frames. If you miss it, there is a likelihood that you'll be bothered and miss the true revelation of the movie (which lies in one of the best star making turns in recent movie history).

Given the above, I must be vague. The movie revolves a community which is almost Amish in its characteristics. The villagers are self sufficient in their world. It features a great cast led by William Hurt, Joaquin Phoenix, Adrien Brody, Sigourney Weaver and Brendon Gleeson. However, the talent is so wastefully squandered with too rare, fleeting moments of interaction, notably with Weaver/Hurt and Brody/Phoenix. That star making turn mentioned above, is the acting debut of Bryce Dallas Howard, the daughter of director Ron Howard, who plays Hurt's daughter and girlfriend of Phoenix. She reminds me an awful lot of Kate Hudson in "Almost Famous"....very sweet, idealistically driven, and strong willed. Each time she takes the screen you can't help being transfixed. Although a supporting character, the movie thankfully belongs to her.

The elders of the community (Hurt, Weaver, Gleeson and others) have prohibited the villagers to venture into the surrounding woods, as there are "Creatures of which we do not speak" living within. They wear red hoods and red is a color which they are not allowed to cast their eyes upon. The community is in turn paralyzed by fear. As history would have it, there has been bad, spilt blood with these creatures and a truce was called. The promise of the truce, is that neither party is not allowed to set foot into the other's territory, or else it will be considered void. Sounds ominous and promising and there are a few genuine scenes which make you jump out of your skin. There are a handful of moments when this movie could have kicked into high gear. However, the plot becomes so transparently thin, and the movie is let down by the acknowledgment that it could have been so much more.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)

(Spoliers Contained) A movie blends so many styles and has become a genre onto itself is a testament to the sheer brilliance of Tarantino and his ensemble.

[14 June 2004]

SPOILERS CONTAINED BELOW:

Heads up to anyone going into the movie expecting the action which its predecessor excelled at providing. The second installment, picks up exactly where the previous left off i.e. the Bride (Uma Thurman) proceeding merrily along with serious scars and bruises, to cut down the remaining three on her hit list of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad, namely Bud (Mike Madsen), Elle Driver (Darryl Hannah) and Bill (David Carradine).

The movie begins as if it were a film straight out of the 1940s early 1950s, with Uma clearly restating her intention, while cruising in her convertible, that she's going to Kill Bill. However, the foundation is set easily within the first twenty minutes, that this is more than just a revenge tale.

As the mayhem ensues, surprises unfold and we learn more about the Bride's past. At this stage, all I've got to say is that the chemistry between Carradine and Thurman is undeniable. Tarantino, we know has a way of reinventing careers, and he has done it again, with the meaty roles presented to Carradine of the movie (part of the heart and soul of the movie), and the vicious Hannah. These are equally matched pound for pound by Thurman (with her matriarchal tendencies), and the madcap Madsen. Each character is given such treatment by the director, resulting in tremendous depth and Oscar worthy performances; coupled with such alarmingly irreverent and funny dialogue, you are left reeling.

To choose which scenes stand out, is virtually impossible. Although, there is one situation in which the Bride finds herself, that freaked the heck out of me. However, in typical QT fashion, we are transported to another scene, where the master of martial arts training, Pei Mei (played by Gordon Liu......a name which all Kung Fu junkies would know), schools the Bride. That scene in itself completes the East meets West vision which Tarantino brilliantly began executing in the first movie. Action junkies fear not, the showdown between the Bride and Elle, is beyond anything I've ever seen, choreography and editing wise.

Each speech by the cast members is delivered with such gusto and is the set up for an event of proportions (Elle's research on snakes; Bud's chastising the Bride on making good choices; Bud's boss chewing him out for coming to work late and Carradine's Superman treatise). This is the only way Tarantino knows how to do it, gratuitously and again....funny. As with every Tarantino movie, the music is hand picked from his personal collection and used most effectively.

The final showdown, between the Bride and Bill, is not about action, rather it's about their journey and the true plot of the movie is revealed. Revenge was really just secondary.

Do I think I might be giving too much credit to this movie? Certainly not......the mere fact that the movie blends so many styles and has become a genre onto itself is a testament to the sheer brilliance of Tarantino and his ensemble. It's one of the best movies this year and dare I say, better than the first !

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

A movie so lopsided, twisted, off kilt in its romanticism, it is original and genius (review contains spoilers)

[15 May 2004]

SPOILER ALERT!!

It begins with a madcap urge by Joel (Carrey) to ditch work and board a train to Montauk, Long Island. He meets Clementine (Winslet) on the train....she's as crazy it would seem, yet they connect in a way as if they are long lost friends, notwithstanding they seem like total opposites. Their relationship doesn't force their chemistry down our throats......they are so imperfect, you see bits of yourself. The end result is that you are left rooting for the characters to find a way out of their eventual predicament.

The affair ends badly and Clementine decides to have her memories of Joel erased. Upon finding out, he opts to investigate and also have it done. The writing is crisp, winning, funny and poignant with Carrey asking Wilkinson (Doctor Howard - I cannot begin to spell or pronounce his surname), if the procedure causes brain damage, he responds in turn, "Well technically, it is brain damage."

What happens is a virtual topsy turvy approach to story telling, which involves freely fast forwarding, rewinding, pausing etc to give the audience snippets of the good and bad times of their relationship. It is a deep, resonating treatise on how valuable memories are to us all.

Joel in the middle of the procedure decides he doesn't want to go through with it. He desperately tries to hold onto some memories with Clementine, but they are consistently wiped out by associates of Dr. Howard, played by Ruffalo, Wood and Dunst. The sub plot involving these four characters is involving, and equally engaging. However, it is difficult to explain and too revealing even if I try. It's a great testimony in keeping with a certain bank's identity theft ads though....that's the most I can say and adds to the central theme of the movie. It even tosses in the ethical dilemma of the procedure for good measure.

There are times when you can't help think, this movie is going to head off track and /or burst at the seams, but surprisingly it never does, thanks largely to stellar directing, and never before seen performances by both Carrey and Winslet and the supporting cast. I've got to admit, after "The Truman Show" Carrey demonstrated that he was versatile and earned some respect from me. The fact that he burrows into this character, is just mesmerizing. Winslet's matching performance varies from need, craziness, longing........just as her hair color does in the movie. Then there are some other "incidental" factors: the brilliant script, cinematography and set design, which ably propels the story.

How do you define love? Does it involve making the same mistakes over again? How important is your past in really defining your future? If you're trying to answer these, check this movie out.