Ndirsch11 Reviews

The Informant! (2009)

"The Informant," a satire that might put you to sleep

[6/10 · 30 September 2009]

Have you ever wanted to see a comedy about price fixing and corporate embezzlement? If so, "The Informant" might be just the film you're looking for. For some, however, "The Informant" might prove to be a crushing bore. I'm somewhere in between but I'll get to that later.

"The Informant" tells the real life story of Mark Whitacre, the highest ranked executive to ever turn whistleblower in U.S. history. It's based on the book of the same name published in 2000 by journalist Kurt Eichenwald. This is one of those instances where truth is, indeed, stranger than fiction. A lot stranger. How does one make sense of a guy who worked his way up the ladder of success at Archer Daniels Midland in Decatur, Illinois, makes up a story about a Japanese saboteur working at the company, hooks up with the FBI to blow the whistle on price fixing that he and others had been involved in all around the world, defrauds nearly $10 million from ADM in the years that he was working undercover for the FBI, hopes to become CEO of ADM once the case is over with, makes up stories about physical abuse against the FBI agent he was working for, and then winds up spending more years in jail than the corporate criminals he helped to nab? The film does offer at least one explanation for Whitacre's strange behavior: bipolar disorder. I'm not sure if that's enough.

Mark Whitacre is portrayed by Matt Damon in another one of those roles that he seemed born to play. He's Hollywood's go-to actor for stories about men on the run from the law, spies, heists, or corporate swindling. It's a strange performance in a film filled with odd creative decisions. For example, the film contains an ongoing voice-over narration from Matt Damon as Whitacre that is just one stupid non sequitur after another. The narration has nothing to do with anything and only serves to highlight Whitacre's odd behavior. One particular piece of narration, as I recall, involves Whitacre discussing how he used to mispronounce the word centimeters. The humor in these monologues is very random, to say the least. Either you go for this sort of humor or you don't. I didn't but I must admit that many people in the theater that I saw it in were laughing. I got the sense that many of them would probably laugh at anything.

Another thing that bothered me about the film is the quirky and eccentric score. "The Informant" contains one of the most bizarre musical scores I've heard in recent cinema. The composer seemed to spare no expense to remind the audience that we were, indeed, watching a comedy. Violins, whistles, and horns are used throughout to the point where I was reminded of a T.V. variety show where the orchestra would provide the necessary comedic cues. Does it work in this film? I don't think so. In fact, I was so distracted by it to the point where I was taken out of the film completely. I had to fight to keep my interest in what was going on up on the screen. This underscores my general problem with "The Informant." It seemed to be trying too hard to be clever, quirky, and funny. Whenever the odd voice-over narration showed up or the music reared its head, it's as if the filmmakers were putting up a big sign that said, "look at how funny this is!" Satire must be handled right and this film's problem is with its tone. I was constantly taken out of the film instead of being engaged by it.

There's still a lot to recommend about "The Informant," however. The performances are mostly good (although Joel McHale seems oddly miscast in the role of an FBI agent), the story has some surprising twists and turns, and I did find myself laughing a bit towards the end at Whitacre's odd behavior. It's competently directed by Steven Soderbergh ("Traffic," "Ocean's Eleven") who is no stranger to these kinds of stories. But most of the film takes place in corporate boardrooms and hotels and the screenplay is very "talky." And because it's based on a true story, its dramatic potential is limited. I think this is the kind of story I would rather read a book about instead of seeing a movie on it. I don't think "The Informant" ultimately succeeds either at what it set out to do: get inside the head of Mark Whitacre. Who was this man really and why did he do the things he did? I never really got a satisfactory answer and the film's quirky demeanor kept me at an emotional distance.

There Will Be Blood (2007)

"There Will Be Blood" is a Masterpiece!

[10/10 · 16 January 2008]

The first shot we see is that of a barren landscape punctuated by three small hills. There are no trees to be seen anywhere, only grassland. Suddenly, the soundtrack kicks in with the sound of violins reaching a loud crescendo. The sound is creepy and disturbing and just as you can't bear it any longer the music quiets down and then stops. The next few scenes contain almost no dialogue and it's quite some time before the plot kicks in to high gear.

In these first few scenes of "There Will Be Blood" great emphasis is placed on creating a feeling of isolation and a sense that madness lies just around the corner. Insanity seems to lurk beneath the surface of every shot and every scene. While watching the film I was reminded of Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" which also used creepy violins to create a sense of dread and menace. This uncompromising tone, which is maintained throughout the film, is the key to the film's great success. It's a perfect example of how style can serve to enhance a film's subject matter rather than merely provide a distraction.

At the end of every year one film always pops up out of nowhere and catches me by surprise. "There Will Be Blood" is such a film and I'll be frank: this is the best new film I've seen in about four years. It was written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson who is most famous for directing "Boogie Nights," a film about the porn industry, and "Magnolia," a three hour long epic starring Tom Cruise. Anderson is highly regarded among critics and film fans but has yet to really break out into the mainstream. "There Will Be Blood" may change that as it's very likely to do well at the Academy Awards. It will most certainly be talked about for years to come.

"There Will Be Blood" is a big and ambitious film about a man named Daniel Plainview who strikes it big in the oil industry in the first couple of decades of the twentieth century. The story is a very loose adaptation of Upton Sinclair's novel, Oil!, and takes place in California. This is not your standard rags to riches story, however. "There Will Be Blood" is essentially a character study, a story about an obsession and how that obsession comes to consume a man's entire life to the point where he's essentially lost his soul in the process.

At the beginning of the film we see how Daniel Plainview engages in a desperate quest to find oil deep within the earth's soil. These scenes are appropriately shot with gritty detail. We see Plainview and his men, for instance, crawl down deep man-made chasms in the ground risking their lives in the process. Life at the bottom of these holes is unbearable: all sunlight is blocked out, dirt and grime is everywhere, and the feeling of claustrophobia is enough to drive one crazy. Later, as Plainview strikes oil and begins to build his oil empire, we witness with horror as one of the wells catches on fire. Great streams of fire and smoke reach for the heavens as the sky turns black. These scenes have an intoxicating pull: we're drawn in by the mad quest to find and manage the oil at any cost.

Daniel Plainview is played by Daniel Day-Lewis in a truly great performance that is the best I've seen this year. It's no surprise to see that he just won a golden globe award for his performance. Day-Lewis plays the character as a man who always wears a poker face and always guards his speech. He walks with a hunched back and always seems to keep a certain distance from other people. In a rare moment of revelation that takes place about halfway through the film, Plainview reveals the motive behind his demeanor: he hates people. People, as it turns out, always want something from him and he has neither the inclination nor the willpower to help them. He's only interested in himself, his oil, and his money.

There's a fascinating parallel plot here, too, that involves a religious fanatic living on the farm where Plainview is drilling for oil. Paul Dano plays the preacher, Eli Sunday, and his twin brother Paul. Eli Sunday and Daniel Plainview just about hate each other from the moment they first meet. Much of the film is devoted to the nature of their relationship which mostly involves intense jealousy: each one desires what the other has. It's with this secondary plot that the themes of the film really shine through. "There Will Be Blood" is essentially about competition and greed.

The narrative arc of "There Will Be Blood" deserves comparison with "Citizen Kane." Both films are about ambitious men who crave success and money, achieve it, and then realize their success comes at the cost of their humanity. The ending of "There Will Be Blood" is likely to generate a great deal of debate. I found it to be brilliant and there's a great monologue delivered by Daniel Day-Lewis that involves a milkshake which I'm sure will be quoted by people for years to come. Don't miss this film. "There Will Be Blood" is a masterpiece.

In the Valley of Elah (2007)

"In the Valley of Elah" a bold anti-war drama

[8/10 · 26 September 2007]

One aspect of the ongoing war in Iraq that rarely gets discussed is the plight of soldiers returning home directly from the battlefield. Although the death toll for American troops has been widely documented and discussed (the current death toll stands at 3801), the voices of those returning soldiers has been marginalized to the point of being nonexistent. Their story has not properly been told or put into perspective. Much of the debate and discussion in the media tends to center around the politics of the war or strategies for success, rather than on the human cost of the conflict. Discussing the inconvenient truths of war is apparently not a top priority for a complicit media.

In his new film, "In the Valley of Elah," writer, director, and producer Paul Haggis ("Crash") attempts to put the story of Iraq war veterans and their families in proper perspective. The film begins with a scene in which a father receives a phone call from the military informing him that his son has gone AWOL (absent without leave). As a veteran of the war in Vietnam, the father instinctively knows and understands the inner workings of the military. He knows that when he receives such a phone call that something is terribly wrong and that he better take matters into his own hands. When he hangs up the phone, we can sense he is frightened even though he shows no visible signs of an emotional reaction. This internalization of one's emotions is central to the film's success: it understands the psychology of the military as an institution.

The father's name is Hank Deerfield and he is portrayed by Tommy Lee Jones in one of the best performances I have seen this year. In just a few short scenes, Jones is able to establish a clearly defined personality without ever seeming to try: that's the key to great acting. About midway through the film there's a scene in which Hank gets paid a visit at his motel room by a military officer bearing bad news about his son. Hank knows what the bad news is but before he has the chance to hear it upfront he insists on going to the bathroom: Hank has cut himself shaving and wants to clean the wound. As we see him cutting out a perfect square from a piece of toilet paper and placing it on his neck, we can't help but wonder what's up with this guy. We would expect any father when he knows he is about to learn of his son's death to behave with a little more urgency. Not Hank, though. As a military man he is accustomed to procedure and proper modes of behavior. Being seen in public with a bleeding wound would be improper. This small scene explains everything we need to know about Hank.

"In the Valley of Elah" is based on actual events that occurred in 2003 involving the murder of an Iraq War veteran shortly after his return home. The film leads up to the discovery of the murder and the subsequent investigation into the motives for the crime. Hank Deerfield takes center stage in the investigation when he feels that clues are being overlooked and questions not being properly answered. Police detective Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron) joins him in the investigation despite the fact that no one else seems very interested in pursuing the case. Suspecting a cover-up of some sort, both Hank and detective Sanders get to the bottom of the crime. What they discover is more than what they bargained for.

Like his earlier work in "Crash," director Paul Haggis takes a humanistic approach to his material: there are no clearly defined villains here and everyone has notable flaws. Unlike "Crash," however, this film is less ambitious and less dramatic. Haggis strips the story of any excess baggage and allows the actors and their performances to take center stage. The appeal to dramatic minimalism works very well and creates a very engaging and compelling story. This is a message movie but we never feel like the message overburdens the story.

It's great to see Hollywood making movies that deal directly with current historical events. Sometimes it takes several years for the film industry to rack up the courage to produce movies dealing with controversial wars (as was the case with the Vietnam War). Although "In the Valley of Elah" is not overtly political, it is a compelling and heartbreaking drama that deserves to be seen and discussed.

Balls of Fury (2007)

'Balls of Fury' not as funny as the trailer

[6/10 · 29 August 2007]

Have you ever gone to see a movie you've been looking forward to for a long time only to find out that all the best scenes have already been spoiled for you? Usually when this happens it's because of some overzealous friend who can't help but reveal every joke or plot detail beforehand. I was disappointed by the new comedy, "Balls of Fury," not because it's a bad movie, but rather because all the best scenes had been given away by the trailer. Judging the trailer alone, which is hilarious, one would hope that "Balls of Fury" would turn out to be one of the funniest movies in years. Alas, it just wasn't meant to be.

"Balls of Fury" is another one of those sports comedies like "Blades of Glory" in which a once disgraced athlete has to prove he's still got the talent to compete. The only difference this time around is that the sport is Ping-Pong, a game just about everyone has played but few take seriously. One of the funnier aspects of "Balls of Fury" is how everyone in the film takes Ping-Pong not only seriously, but deadly seriously. When a character asks "what part of sudden death didn't you understand," he means business.

The plot is absurd but that's OK, I guess, because nobody goes to these kinds of films for a coherent plot. The story goes something like this: a kid named Randy Daytona (Dan Fogler) loses a national Ping-Ping tournament after having become a phenomenon and a superstar. Never recovering from that loss, Randy grows up, gains a lot of weight, and works at a bad job in Reno, Nevada. When FBI agent Rodriguez (George Lopez) shows up he recruits Randy on a dangerous mission to find Feng (Christopher Walken), a Ping-Pong enthusiast who runs a secret and criminal underworld of tournaments where people are held against their will. Before he goes off to compete in one of Feng's Ping-Pong tournaments Randy must first receive training from Wong (James Hong), a blind Chinese man who has trained some of the best Ping-Pong players in the world. If it sounds like you've heard this basic story before, it's because you have. You can more or less figure out the rest from here.

The funniest scenes involve the blind man (he practically steals the movie) as well as the Christopher Walken character. The casting of Walken as a Chinese man who likes to wear outlandish outfits might seem a bit odd but it nevertheless works. I don't think anyone else could have pulled it off except him. Walken has a way of delivering his lines in a deadpan manner that makes them seem all the more funny. It's clear that he had a good time with this role.

What's disappointing about the movie, however, is that it's really not as funny as it sounds. The problem is that there are only about three or four kinds of jokes that are simply repeated over and over again until they're not funny anymore. We get at least six scenes of the main character getting punched or kicked in the crotch. We get a lot of homophobic humor (this seems to be happening a lot lately in comedies) involving feminine men wearing short shorts. We get a lot of scenes where the blind man is looking in the wrong direction or falling because he can't see in front of him. Last but not least, we get too much ethnic humor concerning the Chinese because apparently Asians are very funny to Western audiences even when they're not doing anything funny. This is all harmless, dumb fun, I suppose, but this kind of humor seems to be aimed primarily at twelve year old boys.

The trailer for "Balls of Fury" is much funnier than the movie itself because it contains all the best scenes and edited in such way as to create good comedic timing. When you've already seen the best scenes then much of the fun is spoiled. Even though I found "Balls of Fury" to be rather flat and derivative, I still watched it with a smile on my face. I suspect most people will enjoy it but I doubt they will remember it for very long.

Shooter (I) (2007)

'Shooter' shoots itself in the foot

[5/10 · 29 March 2007]

The new Mark Wahlberg film thinks it has many tricks up its sleeve. The plot of "Shooter" involves a suspected presidential assassination, a covert government conspiracy, genocide in Africa, oil pipelines, rogue agents, and corrupt politicians. Don't be fooled, however, by the film's overly elaborate and obtuse plot: there's less here than meets the eye. "Shooter" is just your standard action thriller dressed up to seem smarter and more intelligent than it actually is. It wants to be the next "Syriana" but fails.

"Shooter" is a very loose adaptation of Stephen Hunter's novel, "Point of Impact," about a former military sniper on the run from corrupt government agents. Mark Wahlberg plays the former military marksman, Bob Lee Swagger, a patriotic man who used to have great faith in the priorities of the American government. His belief systems were destroyed in his last mission in Ethiopia. In the opening scene we witness how Swagger was sent to Ethiopia to defend some African villagers. To Swagger's surprise, his superior officers shut the mission down and order all witnesses, including Swagger, to be killed. Swagger survives and goes into semi-retirement out in the American West.

Swagger is now a changed man, someone much more cynical then he was before. When he gets a knock on the door one day from government agents he's understandably unenthusiastic. One of the agents, Colonel Johnson (Danny Glover), however, makes him an offer he can't refuse: help protect the president of the United States from a suspected assassination attempt. The shooter is an expert marksman so it will take another expert marksman to stop him.

The rest of the film, unfortunately, does not live up to the promise of these early scenes. Suffice it to say, Swagger is being conned by the very people he thought he could trust. Swagger, we're led to believe, is just one part in an elaborate conspiracy to deceive the American public and distract them from the truth. The truth involves the cover-up of crimes committed by Big Business in compliance with certain shadowy figures in the American government.

Swagger, now on the run, is trying to uncover the truth so he can prove his innocence. He finds a couple of allies along the way, including the widow of a dead friend from his military days. Kate Mara plays the widow, Sarah Fenn, a poorly written role that simply serves as a convenient plot device. Swagger also finds a friend in Nick Memphis (Michael Pena), a young FBI agent who comes to suspect that the government has something to hide. Michael Pena ("World Trade Center") turns in a tepid performance in yet another poorly written role.

"Shooter" contains just about every conspiracy theory cliché you can think of. What's frustrating, however, is that the film really doesn't seem very interested in the ideas it's presenting to the audience. It certainly never feels very compelling or convincing. Watching "Shooter" is like listening to a guy who keeps hinting at terrible things to come and then says "never mind." For a film trying so hard to be provocative you would think "Shooter" had something important to say. It ends up being rather boring and uneventful despite all the plot twists and turns.

The director of "Shooter" is Antoine Fuqua ("Training Day," "King Arthur"), an action director and nothing more. Fuqua's talents are limited to staging stunts and spectacular car chases, so it should come as no surprise that "Shooter" feels like your standard action thriller. What this film needs is more attention to characterization instead of elaborate action sequences. The action and violence, although well staged, lacks suspense and a proper payoff.

"Shooter" is a film that takes advantage of people's fears in a post 9/11 world. We're living in a cynical time in which fewer and fewer people trust what our government is telling us about our role in the world. So isn't it about time that Hollywood made a political film that actually had some politics to it or at least something important to say? "Shooter" is not that film I'm afraid. Its plot is absurd and convoluted and its characters are without depth. For those looking for a great American political thriller, I'd suggest the original "Manchurian Candidate": that film still has the power to shock and surprise even today. I'm willing to bet that even conspiracy theory nuts will be dissatisfied with what "Shooter" has to offer.

Inland Empire (2006)

"Inland Empire" a bold work of artistic vision

[8/10 · 16 March 2007]

The latest film from legendary director David Lynch (Blue Velvet, Mulholland Dr.) invites the viewer to abandon all preconceived notions and expectations concerning film as a medium of storytelling. We're invited to be like Alice in Wonderland, tumbling down the rabbit hole into a world strange and unfamiliar. The world of "Inland Empire" exists entirely within the subconscious: a world populated by Freudian symbols where nothing is what it appears to be and time and space have no meaning. This is a world of dreams in which all semblance of plot and narrative is thrown out the window. "Inland Empire" works like a dream because it is a dream. Don't worry if this doesn't make any sense. Believe me when I say that this is probably the strangest movie ever made.

"Inland Empire" is the ultimate vanity project. For those unfamiliar with the director, David Lynch, all I can say is that he's unlike any other director working today. Lynch is the Salvador Dali of filmmakers: his medium is surrealism and his canvas is film. He's one of the most talented directors of his generation but also one of the most frustrating. The ultimate question concerning his artistic merit is this: are his films simply weird for weird sake or is there something more to it than meets the eye? In the case of "Inland Empire" I choose the latter. A Lynch film should be viewed as an abstract work of art: interpretations may vary but the feelings conveyed within are clear.

The plot (what plot?) of "Inland Empire" is difficult to follow and more difficult to explain. We're introduced to a character named Nikki Grace (Laura Dern), an actress living in Hollywood who's hoping to be cast in a new movie. As she awaits a call from her agent, Nikki gets paid a visit by a mysterious woman who might be some kind of fortune teller. She warns Nikki that she might die if she gets the part and makes vague insinuations about other unfortunate events. When Nikki finally gets the lead in the movie, she finds herself falling in love with her co-star, Devon Berk (Justin Theroux). To complicate matters, the script is about an adulterous affair between the two leads. The problem for Nikki is that she finds her real life mirroring that of the character she's playing in a fictional film. Also, it is later revealed that the film she's shooting is a remake of a doomed Polish production which remained unfinished due to the murder of the two stars. The production of the movie appears to be cursed.

The rest of the movie plays like a surrealist nightmare in which the line between thought and reality are never clear. The entire movie may, in fact, be a dream of Nikki's where she's forced to confront her own fears and insecurities as an actress. Or is it someone else's dream about an actress playing a woman in a film? Or is "Inland Empire" actually a movie within a movie: a film about the difficult of film-making? There's no easy answer here.

"Inland Empire" is full of startling images and unforgettable moments. At several points the film cuts to a group of talking rabbits who seem to inhabit the set of some bad television sitcom. The rabbits talk in deadpan voices as a laugh track interrupts the dialogue. Later a group of prostitutes cast in shadow recount the horrors and abuse they face on a daily basis. This scene is interrupted when the prostitutes randomly break out into song and dance as they perform "The Locomotion." No explanation is ever given as to why.

Trying to figure out "Inland Empire" is like trying to solve a Rubik's Cube: no matter how hard you try to line things up, they never fit. Some viewers are likely to find "Inland Empire" an exasperating and frustrating experience. At three hours in length, "Inland Empire" is an intellectually challenging film. My recommendation is that you submit yourself to the film's epic weirdness: this is a puzzle that's worth figuring out.

Zodiac (2007)

'Zodiac' is an Engrossing Murder Mystery

[7/10 · 8 March 2007]

The latest film by director David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club) is not your standard crime drama or psychological thriller. Whereas most films dealing with crime try to pump up the action and suspense, 'Zodiac' is more concerned with intrigue, procedure, and investigation. This is a gritty, detail-oriented, documentary-like film that aims for realism and authenticity. Although 'Zodiac' is about a notorious serial killer, it's investigative journalism that is the film's primary focus. Because the culprit was never caught the story is told from the perspective of those who became caught up in the case. 'Zodiac' is ultimately a tale about an obsession: the killer's obsession with violence, the public's fascination with crime, and the journalist's obsession to crack the case.

'Zodiac' is a true story recounting the details of one of the most notorious murder mysteries in American history. The Zodiac was a serial killer who made a series of seemingly random murders in the San Francisco Bay area in the late 60's and early 70's. What set the case apart was the fact that the killer took credit for his crimes and even went so far as to contact local newspapers to brag about what he had done. The Zodiac would provide clues to his identity in elaborate symbols and codes sketched out on paper. He would make threats to the press that if they didn't publish his confessions he would commit even more gruesome crimes. The press faced a dilemma: disobey the Zodiac and risk more lives or submit to his demands and give legitimacy to a murderer.

We never get a good look at the Zodiac because, after all, he was never actually caught. The primary suspect, Arthur Allen, eventually died of a heart attack before he could be brought into custody. It's unclear if he could have been charged for any crime since his fingerprints never matched the ones at the scene of the crimes.

The elusiveness of the case caused more than a few headaches for those involved in solving it. A reporter for the San Francisco Enquirer, Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.), thinks he knows the psychology of the Zodiac better than anyone. Avery is not so sure the killer is always telling the truth and is more convinced that the Zodiac is just some perverted narcissist trying to get attention. Others on the case, such as Inspector David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo), come up against so many hurdles in the investigation that they're forced to give up. Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), a cartoonist for the San Francisco Enquirer, is an exception. Rather than give up on a case that seems to have no end in sight, he becomes obsessed with solving it even at the cost of sacrificing any semblance of a personal life. By the end of the tale, Graysmith is convinced he knows who the killer is. But after ten years of investigation, will anyone believe him?

At nearly three hours in length, 'Zodiac' is a long film and certainly feels like it. Although Fincher and the screenwriter, James Vanderbilt, keep the story moving along at a brisk pace, the film ultimately gets bogged down in an endless parade of names, dates, plot points, and other details. You almost have to bring a notepad to keep track of all the events in the story. This is not a fault of the filmmakers but rather an inevitable problem in any movie based on a true story. There's not a lot of thematic depth here because the story itself is murky and inconclusive. Vanderbilt's screenplay is very strong and does a good job of creating genuine interest in the characters. A minor flaw lies in the inclusion of the story of Graysmith's wife, played by Chloe Sevigny. Sevigny, unfortunately, is given very little to do other than stand around and look worried. In a story like this there's not a lot of room for diversion.

Despite these complaints 'Zodiac' is a good film and certainly well worth checking out. Even though it's incredibly long I was, nevertheless, always interested and intrigued by the story. All the performances are good, particularly Jake Gyllenhaal who's emerging as one of the finest actors working today. David Fincher's directing is appropriately moody and atmospheric and the production values are great: the CGI shots of San Francisco as it appeared in the 70's are very convincing. For those interested in unsolved murder mysteries, 'Zodiac' should certainly prove to be one of the better films of its kind in recent memory.

Hannibal Rising (2007)

'Hannibal Rising' Will Not Stand the Test of Time

[4/10 · 22 February 2007]

There is an unfortunate tendency in modern horror films to do anything, no matter how shameless, to get a reaction out of the audience. The premise of these films goes something like this: the more blood, violence, and gore, the better the movie. In reality the opposite is quite true. Alfred Hitchcock got it right with 'Psycho' and other talented directors have been able to successfully follow the formula of 'less is more.' The problem with films like 'Hostel,' 'The Hills have Eyes,' and now 'Hannibal Rising,' besides being truly awful, is that there's really no craft behind it. Anybody can come up with these stories because the stories are essentially irrelevant: it's all just a set up for another bloodbath.

'Hannibal Rising' is the fifth entry in the wildly successful Hannibal Lecter franchise and it may turn out to be the final nail in the coffin. As a fan of the franchise I have to say that this latest effort is a huge disappointment. 'Hannibal Rising' is an adaptation of Thomas Harris' latest book which was released late last year to mixed reviews. The story is a prequel to the rest of the series and tries to explain Hannibal Lecter's origins, his childhood, and how he came to be a cannibalistic psychopath.

The film begins in 1941 in the midst of World War II. The Lecter family, who own a castle in Lithuania and are assumed to be very wealthy, are trying to escape from the Nazis and from the horrors of war. Hannibal Lecter is a young child at this point and is established to be very close to his younger sister, Mischa. What happens next is one of those childhood traumatic events that tend to shape the outcome of the rest of one's life. Young Hannibal Lecter witnesses the death of his parents and then, to his horror, the death of his sister. Mischa Lecter's death is quite gruesome, so I will spare the details. Suffice it to say, Hannibal Lecter is exposed to cannibalism for the first time.

The rest of the story becomes rather tedious and formulaic as it goes from Hannibal Lecter as a young child to Lecter as a young adult. After running away from home, Lecter comes to live with his aunt, the Lady Murasaki Shikibu (Gong Li). She takes an active interest in him, although it's never really explained why, and he goes off to medical school in France. The rest of the story is your standard revenge tale: the hero goes off to kill the people who hurt him as a child. To call this an anticlimax would be an understatement.

Hannibal Lecter is played by newcomer Gaspard Ulliel (A Very Long Engagement) in an over-the-top performance that is simply all wrong. Where Anthony Hopkins was once subtle and restrained, Ulliel is trying too hard to look and act like a psychopath. He's always smirking and winking at the camera as if he wants to let us in on a little joke. There's no semblance of character transitions either. Hannibal Lecter goes from innocent young child to raging psychopath and cannibal in the blink of an eye. We never get any sense of what is going on inside his mind or what his motivations are. It doesn't help that the filmmakers and the screenwriter (Thomas Harris of all people) keep supplying him with lines like "you ate my sister," which comes across as unintentionally funny. Even more ludicrous is a scene in which, after having killed someone and stolen the guy's fish, Lecter smirks and says "yum."

The great failure of 'Hannibal Rising' is that if fails to offer us any new insight into the character of Hannibal Lecter. It's not enough to say that he had a traumatic childhood and, therefore, he became a killer. Many people have experienced traumatic events as children without becoming psychopaths or murderers, certainly not to the extent of someone like Lecter. The film also lacks genuine moments of suspense. Instead it tries to set up scene after scene of blood and carnage, all of which quickly grows old. Whereas the great 'Silence of the Lambs' was grounded in realism, 'Hannibal Rising' is a three-ring circus.

Bobby (I) (2006)

'Bobby' a Contrived Political Melodrama

[6/10 · 6 December 2006]

When it comes to reflecting on American history, there is always an unfortunate tendency among people to idealize the past and make overzealous claims about the achievements and credentials of our leaders. This tendency can most certainly be found in American history textbooks, where the perspective is always skewed towards inciting feelings of patriotism. We're also told to view history from the perspective of the rich and powerful as if the masses played little or no role in shaping the direction of the country.

This is exactly the problem with 'Bobby', a film which centers on the fateful day in which Robert F. Kennedy was shot and killed. The year was 1968: the United States was embroiled in an increasingly unpopular war in Vietnam, Martin Luther King had just been assassinated, and Americans everywhere were losing confidence in the priorities of the government. Bobby Kennedy, we're told in the film, brought a sense of hope for the future. As he began a promising campaign for president, Bobby Kennedy, like his brother, was gunned down by an assassin in a senseless act of violence.

The movie is directed by Emilio Estevez, the son of Hollywood liberal, Martin Sheen. Although his intentions are always good and the movie is certainly sincere, Estevez simply tries too hard to drive home the message that if only Bobby Kennedy had lived, then America would have fulfilled the hopes and dreams of the 60's. One of the film's most unsubstantiated claims is the idea that Bobby Kennedy wanted to end the Vietnam War. There's really no reason to believe this since the Kennedy family was notorious for being staunchly anti-Communist. Many might be shocked to find out that Bobby Kennedy was very close to the infamous anti-Communist Senator Joseph McCarthy and even worked with him in the 50's on one of his subcommittees investigating "subversives."

The entire movie suffers under the weight of this misguided need to idealize Bobby Kennedy into an almost saintly figure. Although the movie's primary problem is political, another problem is the decision to make the film solely about the day of Bobby Kennedy's assassination. By confining itself to this single day in history, the film avoids offering us any kind of analysis about the man himself, his career, or his politics. Instead, we're offered a moment by moment account of everything that happened that day at the Ambassador Hotel in California, the scene of the crime. We get all the mundane details about the people who worked there or who happened to be there by chance. Everyone from hotel guests, bus boys, the manager, and even a nightclub singer are included.

With a huge ensemble cast, 'Bobby' is clearly trying to emulate the structure of a Robert Altman film. The film outdoes itself, however, by casting so many A-list actors into one film as to seem desperate for our attention. Here's a short list of some of the stars of the film: Anthony Hopkins, Demi Moore, Sharon Stone, William H. Macy, Helen Hunt, Ashton Kutcher, Lindsay Lohan, Elijah Wood, Laurence Fishburne, and Christian Slater. Everyone gives a good performance although few, if any, are given much to do. Bobby Kennedy, for the most part, is conspicuously absent from the film. Instead, the director uses stock footage when it is needed or uses an actor shot from behind or in the distance.

The many characters and subplots don't add much value to the film. The director is simply never able to connect the dots between these stories and how they relate to Bobby Kennedy. There's obviously some grand humanist message here about hope in troubled times. It gets buried, however, because every moment in the film seems staged and contrived. The film also fails to effectively capture this moment in history. Unlike 'United 93', which effectively realized the events of 9/11, 'Bobby' feels artificial. We're too aware of the film's agenda to feel that we are reliving history.

Stranger Than Fiction (2006)

'Stranger than Fiction' a Good Dose of Comedy and Tragedy

[7/10 · 15 November 2006]

'Stranger than Fiction' tells the story of Harold Crick, a dull and unimaginative man whose life seems to be stuck in pause. His days are spent adhering to an uncompromising routine: he wakes up, brushes his teeth, goes to work, comes home, eats alone, and goes to bed. Everything is perfectly timed down to the minute by his wristwatch. Spontaneity is simply not an option, and not surprisingly, Harold has no real friends. To make matters worse, Harold is an IRS agent. When he does go out to meet new people, it's usually to audit someone for tax fraud.

The film opens with a series of shots showing us Harold's daily routine. Almost immediately we hear the voice of a narrator telling us the details of Harold's boring life. The narrator is not Harold, but rather an unidentified female voice. Here's the catch though: one day, Harold begins hearing the voice that's narrating his life story. Since nobody else seems to hear it, Harold believes he's going crazy and seeks professional help. In a very short time, Harold's life will be turned upside down.

Emma Thompson plays Kay Eiffel, a well known author in the midst of writing a new novel. She also happens to be the voice of the narrator! Unknown to Miss Eiffel is the fact that Harold Crick, the protagonist of the novel she's writing, is actually a real person. Reality and fantasy collide throughout the movie as we see how whatever is written in the story becomes true. As the story is being written, Harold can hear every word that is typed and knows his fate before it comes.

Will Ferrell, who plays Harold Crick, gives an unusually understated and subtle performance for a comedic actor. His performance is reminiscent of the kind of minimalism that we usually expect from the likes of Bill Murray. By not overacting, Ferrell gives the movie weight and depth and manages to make a mundane character worthy of audience sympathy.

'Stranger than Fiction' is ultimately a movie about fate and control. That's one of the problems I had with it. On the one hand, Harold Crick learns his fate from the narrator and tries to change his ways. He falls in love with Ana Pascal, played by Maggie Gyllenhaal, and tries to learn to play the guitar. All of this is an attempt to truly live life as it is meant to be lived. On the other hand, Harold's life is being dictated by someone else. So doesn't that mean that Harold has no free will? The movie tries to have it both ways and it doesn't really work. It's hard to cheer for a character whose life is being completely controlled by someone else. Even when Harold does try to change his ways and escape fate, he remains a passive character.

The ending, which I will not reveal, is both unsatisfying and disappointing. It's a bit of a cop-out and an appeal to Hollywood sentimentalism. Also, some of the supporting roles are wasted opportunities. Dustin Hoffman, who plays a college professor helping Harold Crick, is given little to do. Queen Latifah, who plays Miss Eiffel's secretary, is given even less to do. I'm still going to recommend the movie, however, because it's always well intentioned. I think it's one of those movies that might have looked better on paper than on film. I'll definitely give it credit for being original.

Babel (I) (2006)

'Babel' a Tough, Gritty, Challenging Film

[9/10 · 8 November 2006]

"If you want to be understood…listen." Thus, goes the tagline for 'Babel', the new film starring Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett. Taking place in four different countries around the world and featuring many different languages, 'Babel' is certainly no small or insignificant movie. Its scope is global and its themes are universal. 'Babel' is one of those rare films that actually pushes the medium of film-making to a new level. It's an unforgettable movie that will certainly provoke a reaction even from the most jaded of viewers.

The film's title is an obvious reference to the Biblical story of The Tower of Babel. For those not familiar with it, the story tells of how the people of earth desired to build a tower that could reach the heavens. When God heard of this, he scattered the people all around the world and confused their speech into different languages so that they would not understand each other. The Biblical reference is not accidental. The film makes the suggestion that the contemporary world, despite all our technology and advances, still serves to keep people apart rather than bring people together. We're unable to bridge the gap between languages, cultures, and governments.

The film opens on a barren stretch of desert. An old man is walking alone and having difficulty breathing in the harsh environment. He comes home to his family who live miles from civilization. Almost immediately, the audience understands that we're in a third world country where every day is a test of survival. The old man gives his two kids a rifle to use to protect their livestock from the jackals of the open desert. The kids leave and begin to use the rifle for target practice. In the horizon, a lone bus can be seen driving down along a stretch of highway. One kid takes aim, shoots, and hits his target. The result is a little more than he bargained for.

We learn shortly thereafter that an American tourist has been shot and desperately in need of medical attention. Cate Blanchett plays the American tourist whose husband, played by Brad Pitt, seems to have dragged her along for a vacation in Morocco that neither is particularly enthused about. The implications of this opening scene are catastrophic as they set the entire plot of the film in motion. The two children with the rifle didn't mean to actually shoot anyone. But will anyone believe their side of the story? 'Babel' provides us with a window into the human soul. The whole movie is an appeal to humanism. There are no good guys or bad guys here, only good intentions. The film shows how a disparity often exists between the intentions of our actions and the subsequent results. Also, the way we are understood is confused by the way people interpret our motives. Communication, or the lack of it, is the overriding theme of the film.

There are other stories intertwined throughout the film. One story involves a deaf Japanese girl, played by Rinko Kikuchi, who still suffers from the memory of her mother's suicide. Another subplot involves an illegal immigrant from Mexico, played by Adriana Barraza, who works as a nanny in San Diego. Each of these stories is equally important and equally heartbreaking.

'Babel' is one of the most challenging films to come out in recent years. There are some tough scenes that might be a bit much for some people. I'm glad, however, that the film's director, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, was willing to be so provocative. 'Babel' strikes such a powerful chord because of how it deals with modern-day issues like terrorism and illegal immigration. There's something to be learned from a film like this and its message is badly needed.

Marie Antoinette (2006)

'Marie Antoinette' a Pleasant Surprise

[8/10 · 1 November 2006]

Part chick flick, period piece, and historical drama, Sofia Coppola's latest film, 'Marie Antoinette', avoids easy labeling. Although flawed, the film succeeds as an engrossing account of the rise and fall of one of history's most derided and iconic figures. With a strong cast, lavish production values, and an unusual soundtrack, 'Marie Antoinette' is completely one of a kind.

Marie Antoinette, who became queen of pre-revolutionary France at the young age of 19, gained notoriety for her outrageous spending habits, eccentric behavior, and wild partying. This life of decadence occurred amidst a national crisis in which the people of France lived in poverty and on the brink of starvation. Marie Antoinette's famous "let them eat cake" comment, more or less summed up the general attitude of the upper class: proclaim ignorance in the face of injustice.

It's important to note that the film avoids going into much detail concerning the French Revolution of 1789. Those looking for an accurate and all-encompassing historical account of that event had better look elsewhere. That's not what this film is about. Instead, director Sofia Coppola decides to center the film around Marie Antoinette's personal life. The film is told primarily from her perspective and tries to see things through her eyes.

Kirsten Dunst stars as the ill-fated queen, whom we meet at the beginning of the film at the age of 15. Marie Antoinette is on her way to the Palace of Versailles where she is to spend the rest of her life married to a man she hardly knows. Audience sympathy is built around Marie Antoinette's unfair situation. Not only does she have no say in her marriage (pre-arranged, of course), but also the only responsibility she is expected to live up to is to get pregnant and, thereby, produce an heir to the throne. The situation is complicated when her husband, the future King Louis XVI, seems unwilling to consummate the marriage. Louis, played by Jason Schwartzman, is portrayed as being completely passive to the point of absurdity. He's so soft-spoken and dim-witted that we can't help but feel sorry for Marie Antoinette.

One of things that I liked about the film is that it's high on the charm factor. Director Sofia Coppola, for instance, infuses the film's soundtrack with modern rock music that ordinarily would seem out of place in a historical film. Somehow, it works and doesn't distract from the story. Also, the film's personality matches that of Marie Antoinette, herself: lighthearted, over-the-top, and eccentric. This helps in creating an intimate atmosphere, in which a long dead historical figure feels a little bit more relatable and accessible to a modern-day audience.

The film has received mixed reviews and got a combination of boos and applause when it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival. It's certainly not a movie for everyone. One of the film's problems is that it's lacking in any real substance. By the end of the film, it was unclear to me what the director was intending to say. The movie is obviously taking a sympathetic approach to Marie Antoinette and tries to portray her as a victim of snobby high society. But beyond this, the film offers very little analysis. Also, by avoiding the events surrounding the French Revolution, the film comes across as rather shallow. After all, no one would really remember or care about Marie Antoinette if it weren't for the Revolution.

The film is also noteworthy for being the first movie production allowed access to the Palace of Versailles. By shooting on location, 'Marie Antoinette' feels completely convincing and authentic. With beautiful sets and great cinematography, the film is almost worth seeing just for the production values alone.

Sofia Coppola, director of the critically acclaimed 'Lost in Translation', has succeeded in creating a compelling interpretation of a historical figure. 'Marie Antoinette' is a pleasant surprise in an otherwise dull year for movies.

The Prestige (2006)

A Complex Tale of Obsession and Revenge

[8/10 · 24 October 2006]

At the beginning of 'The Prestige', we're told that every magic trick consists of three acts: the pledge, the turn, and the prestige. The first two refer to the setup of the magic trick and then its execution. In the final act, the prestige, something extraordinary occurs that defies logic. The audience is able to confirm with their own eyes that the trick worked and is, therefore, deceived into believing it's real.

Magic tricks and magic shows have a lot in common with the art of film-making: in order for a movie to be effective the audience has to be convinced by what they are seeing on the screen. Movies, after all, are nothing more than an act of smoke and mirrors. We go to the movies to be deceived, or perhaps more accurately, to escape from reality.

Director Christopher Nolan's latest film, 'The Prestige', succeeds in being a great act of deception. With a complex plot full of twists and turns, we're never sure where the story will take us next. We're also never sure if everything we're being told in the movie is the truth or that everything is real. The film's complex narrative does a great job of building suspense and dramatic tension.

'The Prestige' takes place in London at the turn of the twentieth century; a time in which magic shows were still a novelty. The plot revolves around two rival magicians who are obsessed with topping each other's tricks and undermining each other's efforts. Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale play the two magicians, Rupert Angier and Alfred Borden, respectively. Although they start off as friends and partners, Angier and Borden turn against each other after the tragic death of Angier's wife during a dangerous magic trick. Borden is blamed for her death even though it appears to have been an accident ... or was it? 'The Prestige' is ultimately a story about obsession and revenge. Not only do Angier and Borden come to hate each other, but also they end up harming the ones they love. The pride they take in their work turns into a dangerous obsession. Both magicians are willing to go to incredible lengths to come up with the best magic trick of all time. The question is, how far will they go? The emphasis on magic, however, is only incidental to the story; it could have easily been about any competitive line of work.

All the elements are in place for a good movie. The cast, also featuring Michael Caine and Scarlett Johanssen in supporting roles, is uniformly great. Christian Bale, in particular, gives an Oscar worthy performance; he's one of the best actors of his generation and really shines here. The directing is top-notch as well, featuring beautiful cinematography and convincing sets. This should come as no surprise, however, considering the fact that director Christopher Nolan has a good track record when it comes to movies. Having previously directed 'Memento' and 'Batman Begins', Christopher Nolan has impressed both audiences and film critics.

Some viewers may object to the film's complicated narrative. The story, told in flashbacks, can get confusing and sometimes makes absolutely no sense. I'm sure if one pays close enough attention, they'll see a plot hole or two. I'm willing to forgive this, however, because I appreciated the movie for its audaciousness and sense of style.

This is the second major Hollywood release in only a couple of months to be about magicians in turn-of-the-century Europe. The other being 'The Illusionist', starring Edward Norton. I have seen both films now and can say that 'The Presige' is the better of the two. It's got a more engaging story and stronger direction.

'The Prestige' is a great spectacle. Featuring a wonderful cast and top-notch production values, the film succeeds as an unforgettable cinematic experience.

The Departed (2006)

Another Great Film from a Great Director!

[9/10 · 19 October 2006]

Just as it was becoming painfully clear that 2006 was one of the worst years for movies in recent memory, along comes a masterpiece like 'The Departed' to freshen things up a bit. This should come as no surprise, however, when one takes a look at the credentials of the film's director: Martin Scorsese. Scorsese is arguably the greatest living filmmaker whose films tend to center on themes dealing with violence, masculinity, and urban alienation. Films like 'Taxi Driver', 'Raging Bull', and 'Goodfellas' are among his best work and have represented American cinema at its very best.

After a series of period pieces, such as 'Gangs of New York' and 'The Aviator', Scorsese takes a change of pace with 'The Departed' and goes back to the urban alleys and streets that have been the setting for many of his films. Many fans will no doubt find this to be a welcome 'return to form' for Scorsese, although this is hardly a fair assessment of the director's body of work.

Although the plot has a somewhat labyrinthine structure, the basic premise of 'The Departed' centers around two moles, or 'rats', both of whom are employed by the Boston State Police Department and the Irish mafia. Jack Nicholson, in one of the best performances of his career, plays the notorious mob boss, Frank Costello, who has many friends in high places protecting his every move. Frank is the kind of man who rules his Boston turf with an iron fist, but is capable of mercy and generosity when it suits him. He values loyalty above all else, and if "you'll scratch his back, then he'll scratch yours."

Leonardo DiCaprio plays Billy Costigan, a young thug who works his way into the Boston State Police Deparartment and gets a little more than he bargained for: he gets assigned to work undercover as a 'mole' in Frank Costello's gang. The other mole is played by Matt Damon, who also works for the Boston Police but is secretly helping Costello every step of the way.

The brilliance of 'The Departed' lies in its wild energy and fast-paced storytelling. Tight editing and controlled camera-work move the story along at a quick pace while the twists and turns of the plot will leave you on the edge of your seat. Another charm of the film is its somewhat over-the-top sense of violence combined with eccentric dialog and crude humor. While watching 'The Departed', I was reminded of Quentin Tarantino's 'Pulp Fiction' in that both films contain random and brutal scenes of violence that are juxtaposed with long scenes of quirky dialog.

'The Departed' is a remake, or more accurately, a reworking, of the popular Hong Kong produced film, 'Infernal Affairs'. Other than a change of setting, 'The Departed' keeps the basic story intact while modifying everything else to appeal to Western audiences.

With a great director at the helm, 'The Departed' winds up being one of the most wildly entertaining movies in recent years. It is sure to be a big contender come Oscar time and may even score Scorsese his long eluded best director trophy. Everybody is perfectly cast with strong performances from Jack Nicholson, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Alec Baldwin in particular.

'The Departed' works because it knows how to entertain. Whatever it may lack in thematic content it more than makes up for in entertainment value. Don't skip this film as it is one of the year's best films and deserves to be seen on the big screen.

Rating: 9 out of 10.

Poseidon (2006)

A Monumental Mess of a Movie!

[4/10 · 16 May 2006]

Wolfgang Petersen's 'Poseidon' is a movie so lacking in innovation, creativity, and excitement that one becomes almost angry to learn that Hollywood spent upwards of $160 million dollars on it. With that much money, one would expect at least some great special effects and some engaging action scenes. I went into 'Poseidon' with low expectations and the understanding that if I wanted character development and plot, I wasn't going to find it. But this new 'Poseidon', a remake of the much much better 'Poseidon Adventure' from 1972, can't even deliver in the technical department of movie-making. There is not one convincing shot or special effect throughout the entire film. As I sat watching 'Poseidon', I was too aware of CGI trickery and special effects to be convinced that I was watching anything other than a big Hollywood set. Even an ambitious tracking shot of the ship at the beginning of the movie seems phony, as we become quickly aware that the sunset in the background is nothing but a "green screen." Even the photography and lighting disappoints, as every shot seems murky at best. If you're going to build such large and beautiful sets for a movie, then at least give us some good shots of it so the audience can appreciate it!

I say all this with the knowledge that the film's director, Wolfgang Petersen, has always been an admirably ambitious director and a technical wizard much in the same vein as Peter Jackson and James Cameron. This is the same man who gave us the wonderfully imaginative 'The NeverEnding Story', the tense thriller 'In the Line of Fire', and was nominated for an academy award for 'Das Boot'. To know how good a director Mr. Petersen can be, makes watching 'Poseidon' all the more depressing.

The biggest problem of all, perhaps, with this movie is that it's just simply in too much of a hurry to get the action going. The movie barely develops any time at all before the tidal wave hits to developing the protagonists whom the audience is expected to root for throughout the rest of the movie. We're introduced to Kurt Russel's character, who's identified as a former mayor of New York City. But what about it, though? Does being a former mayor adequately explain where this man gets all his courage and resolve? We're also introduced to Richard Dreyfuss's character, a lonely older man much like the Red Buttons role in the original film. (Spoiler Alert!) In a ridiculous scene, the script has Richard Dreyfuss considering suicide by climbing over the railing at the edge of the ship. Suddenly, he sees the rogue tidal wave approaching and, guess what?, he decides he wants to live! It's absurd to see such a great actor as Richard Dreyfuss fumbling around in an inept disaster flick and reciting corny dialogue. He's above this kind of material. None of these characters make sense not only because none of them are developed, but also because the screenplay treats them as raw material. The script sees them as rag dolls thrown around the ship to be chewed up and spit out in an endless fight for survival. But how can we root for the survival of characters that aren't even convincing, let alone engaging, in the first place?

One of the reasons why the original 'Poseidon Adventure' worked so well was that it had characters who were tangible and real coupled with great actors who took advantage of the memorable, yet goofy dialogue. This new 'Poseidon' is thoroughly forgettable and bland. It tries to dabble in staunch, gritty realism when in fact it probably should have hammed it up and gone way over the top.

What a mess! 4 out of 10 stars.

Munich (2005)

Spielberg's Best Film Since Schindler's List!

[10/10 · 30 December 2005]

Steven Spielberg's 'Munich' is not so much a political thriller as it is a wrenching human drama. Those who go to see the film specifically expecting it to take either the Israeli or Palestinian side will come out either disappointed or angry. The film is arguing from an Israeli perspective but is severely critical of Israeli policy all the way. What the film, ultimately, is arguing against is meeting acts of terrorism and violence with more terrorism and violence. Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner also are arguing from the perspective that if one intends to solve the problem of terrorism, one must look at the actual causes of terrorism and keep your pride and nationalism in check. The film's message is one that strikes a chord in a post 9/11 world.

The plot of 'Munich' follows Israel's response to the killing of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic Games in Germany at the hands of Palestinian terrorists. The Eric Bana character, who works for Mossad, is assigned to lead a team of four people who will track down those responsible for masterminding the killings in Munich and use whatever methods necessary to eliminate them. Some people have objected to the very idea of portraying assassins as anything but people who bravely and boldly follow their orders for the sake of their nation's security. What Spielberg rightly does instead is humanize the assassins and portray them as people who have fears and doubts as all the rest of us do. (*small spoiler warning*) What is so masterful about the film is the way we get to know these characters and the way their confidence in the mission slowly dissolves. The assassins begin to realize the futility in carrying out their mission as they see how their terrorist targets merely get replaced by other terrorists. When all is said and done, they realize, nothing gets accomplished.

As usual from a Spielberg film, 'Munich' is an incredibly well-made production with stunning camera-work and cinematography. John Williams' score is haunting and brooding and the acting is impeccable (Eric Bana deserves an Oscar nomination). The screenplay gives weight and dimension to all the characters as we see their disillusionment slowly sink in. 'Munich' is incredibly powerful and moving, a film that will shake you to the core. It is Spielberg's strongest production since Schindler's List and is as equally passionate as well. That people can still criticize Spielberg for being timid, melodramatic, and overly sentimental is ludicrous. This film is an act of courage and bravery and shows Spielberg at his absolute best. Here, he shows himself as a director in complete control of his vision. Bravo, Mr. Spielberg!

I award 'Munich' a 10/10. It is also the best film I have seen in 2005.

A Clockwork Orange (1971)

The Greatest Film Ever Made!

[10/10 · 1 January 2005]

What Stanley Kubrick accomplishes with A Clockwork Orange is simply beyond words. This film is number 1 on my favorite film list for an infinite number of reasons. First of all, the acting, screenplay, and direction are all top notch; the story is ambitious and brave; the film's use of classical music fits perfectly; and it leaves you with so much to think about. The key to the film's brilliance lies in its humor. The film contains extraordinarily dark subject matter yet seems lighthearted all the way through. I can't help but watch this film with a smile on my face because I know and understand that the film is trying to poke fun at society and the hypocrisy within our various institutions. That's what all great satire does and this is the greatest satire of them all. Notice such scenes as the nurse and the doctor having sex while Alex is waking up in the hospital, the cat lady with her obscene paintings and statues, the naive parents who don't suspect that their son is up to no good when he goes out at night. All of these things highlight the fact that ordinary, everyday people act much differently behind closed doors than they do in public. In fact, I believe that one of the main messages of the film is that we all in a sense have elements of Alex DeLarge's personality within our own personality. When we can't even acknowledge our own barbaric and disgusting drives then how can we even begin to think of solving such social problems as murder and rape? Many people make the mistake in thinking that the film is trying to justify Alex's crimes. Alex is not meant to be looked upon as a hero or a role model. He's a villain all the way through. But one must also notice how villainous all the other characters are too. Everyone in this movie is essentially a villain because they are all human, and subject to the same drives that drive Alex and his droogs to murder and rape out of boredom. The reason why I believe Stanley Kubrick to be the greatest director who ever lived and ever will live is his ability to depend on the audience's intelligence. All of his films are deliberately ambiguous because the audience is supposed to come to its own conclusions. What you put into a film is what you take away from it. Stanley Kubrick will be missed. Perfect 10/10

Die Another Day (2002)

Disappointing but still fun

[7/10 · 25 March 2003]

Die Another Day is without a doubt the weakest of the Pierce Brosnan Bond films. However, is it a bad film? The answer is no, because the James Bond films are always so entertaining. I don't think I could ever hate a bond film (even the Man With the Golden Gun, which is definitely the worst of them all). The problems with Die Another Day is its weak script, its dependence on CGI effects, shallow characters, and because it tries too hard to impress you. Everything in this film seems so staged to make you go ooh and ahh with the action sequences and the hot babes. Also, I think this is the first time where the quality of a bond film was hurt by being so cliched. If there is any one film series where it's ok to be cliched, it's the James Bond films because people want expect to see all those things we know and love about the series. In this film, however, everything seemed too cliched. The big action sequence on the plane at the end reminded me of the scene on the plane in the Living Daylights, the diamonds on the satellite reminded me of the one in Diamonds Are Forever, and the Bond girl Jinx reminded me too much of past Bond girls where they compete with Bond throughout the film. Even though Halle Berry did her best with her character, I still found Jinx rather uninteresting and shallow. Like I said before, the film seems to stage everything to impress you. The Jinx character was made too be so tough, in your face, and sexy that none of those characteristics seemed to come through naturally. I'd say Halle Berry was one of the more unimpressive bond girls even though she is a great actress. Pierce Brosnan, on the other hand, I would go so far as to say is the best Bond ever. He's so convincing in the part and well, just works. I thought John Cleese was the perfect replacement for Q (even though no one can really fill Desmond Llewelyn shoes. Now, going back to the story, I found it a bit shabby. The beginning part of the film before the song was frustrating because it was too long and had too much dialogue. The beginning of every Bond film should always be sharp, quick, effective, and with a good flow that leads into the song (like in Goldfinger, The Spy Who Loved Me, Goldeneye, etc.). Unlike many people, I liked Madonna's theme song because it was very in your face and well, different. It's the first time techno music was used as a Bond theme. I also liked Madonna's cameo in the film even if it was pointless, because it's nice to look at her (and her muscles) for a minute. The whole story involving DNA resequencing, the diamond satellite, and the Koreans was all merely ok, but seemed a bit over the top in the end (even if that's expected in Bond films). I felt they could have come up with a better story, though, in the end. I also didn't like the dependence on CGI effects because it made certain scenes look too cartoonish. I don't know if it's just me, but I was also not that impressed with many of the action sequences. They just didn't impress me that much. One thing that REALLY irritated me in this film was how Bond was tortured for 14 months, because it was totally rediculous and doesn't seem like something that would happen to Bond. I guess the film was trying to make us feel sympathy for Bond for being tortured, but come on; part of the reason everyone loves Bond is that he can always escape death and get himself out of an impossible situation. By having him imprisoned for that long, it kind of ruins his character. After all, 3 months would have been enough, geez! I thought the villain was ok, but pretty forgettable; his sidekick was even more forgettable. Rosamund Pike's character was a better Bond girl than Halle Berry's because she was bad and resisted Bond at first. I found that interesting. One scene that I did like in this film, however, was the fencing sequence because it was very engrossing to watch and very edge of your seat. If the film would have had more original scenes like that, it would have been better. Also, I liked a lot of the exotic locations, such as the ice palace. Last, but not least, I liked the film's good use of comic relief (even if some of the lines were pathetic) and how the film pays homage to some of the past Bond films. In the end, I still enjoyed the film despite all these complaints, because James Bond films are always very entertaining. Grade : B-