9/10
I doubt there will be an Oscar in it for either, but Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush put in two of the finest, most beautiful performances in any movie I've seen all year. Their friendship and ensuing interplay made me want to both laugh and cry, often in the same scene. The movie is quite simple and a lot more fun than it would seem on first blush and the ending is triumphant. I found it hard to stop smiling after leaving the theatre. Highly recommended!
8/10
This is a very good movie but I would be lying if I said I wasn't slightly underwhelmed - although, in fairness, I did have exceedingly high expectations. Jeff Bridges is great, and can convey more meaning with one blue eyeball than other actors can with their whole bodies. Hailee Steinfeld also did very well for herself surrounded by heavyweights like Bridges, Damon and Brolin most of the movie. I really liked how the Coens told a kind of "old Hollywood" story - there was something very classical in its execution that I enjoyed very much, not to mention the trademark Coens humor. It wasn't quite the revelation I was hoping for but it was a lot of fun, a very "transporting" movie if you will. For more than Bridges' performance I was reminded of last year's Crazy Heart: a movie that hits the right notes, won't bowl you over but leaves you still very satisfied. I downloaded the Wayne True Grit the other day so I'll give that a look ASAP.
8.5/10
Steven Spielberg's first film, a made-for-TV affair involving a man (David Weaver) on the open road being harassed by a monstrous, intimidating gas truck. Weaver plays David Mann, a white-collar everyman (in case the last name didn't drive it home already) driving a red Plymouth Valiant, who passes the truck...and then spends the rest of the afternoon locked in a duel to the death with it. We never know the trucker's identity, and why he's so hellbent on tormenting (indeed, killing) Mann, which only adds to the fear and suspense. There are a couple of great set pieces that take place off the road, including a stop in at a diner where the trucker is assumed to be among the patrons (and where Mann really starts to lose his marbles), a confrontation involving a stalled school bus full of children, and an attempt to call the police from a roadside gas station that ends in chaos. A certain suspension of belief is required to immerse one's self in the duel (the script attempts to explain, via Mann's inner monologue, that Mann's car could "never" outrun the truck as it appears to be souped-up in some manner...but considering the sheer size of the truck this is clearly stretching it).
A lot of the elements from this movie made its way into Jaws, so it was cool to see Spielberg working them out here, on the open road no less. The ending is also incredible and, of course, deliciously CGI-free. I shudder to think how it would be handled nowadays.
8.5/10
Halfway through the movie the painkillers I've been taken for a toothache wore off and it hit me with a vengeance, so that's probably the reason why I wasn't quite as wrapped up in it as I could have been...but I still enjoyed it very much. Aronofsky's made a dressed-up film about paranoia, psychosis, and pressure that's quite a bit more simple than it first appears...but still remains plenty effective. Very much in the lineage of Polanski and Lynch to name but two, and it also leans heavily on an unbelievable turn by its lead "woman in trouble" (Natalie Portman). The supporting cast (Vincent Cassel, Mila Kunis, Ellen Burstyn) is great and well-chosen but this is Portman's movie and she dominates. A small complaint worth mentioning, I thought the script/dialogue could have used a bit of work, as sometimes the dialogue was a bit clunky and too expository. Maybe that just reflects on my general feeling of surprise at how direct and non "artsy" the movie is. Anyway still very impressive, and never a bore for even a second.
7/10
Another fun distraction that pretty much delivered what it says on the tin, I can't find much to fault Machete for, but I didn't love it either. As one would expect from a trailer fleshed out into a feature length movie, at times the joke seems to run a little long and the movie gets bogged down when it, you know, has to actually be a movie. Probably would have been great fun to see in a packed theatre with a bunch of friends though. I was actually a little surprised at how graphic the gore was...credit to Robert Rodriguez for not backing down at all. And it's nice to see perennial sidekick Danny Trejo get his day in the sun.
6/10
The things I find watching MPix late at night. Mostly Canadian movies that never got/don't really deserve a whole lot of attention. This one is about a guy (Murray) who climbs up a tree in a park to escape the wrath of a local gang of stereotypical street ruffians that he's unwisely angered. With both sides refusing to blink first, we're left to watch the psychological warfare that unfolds. Considering it's a movie with 7 actors and it all takes place in or around a tree, it's impressive enough for what it is. Things unfold generally as expected and the acting is solid all around. A decent enough distraction for the 80 minutes it took of my life. Godawful title though.
8.5/10
After another Romanian film named Aurora turned the "revenge killer" movie on its head, I was excited to see this one, which turns the police movie on its head. Cristi is a police officer forced to follow and gather evidence on a hash-smoking teenager and his two friends. He slowly finds himself questioning his morals if he follows through with his intimidating superior's demands to arrest the kid. The movie is filled with subtle, pitch black humor and its take on language (the key to the entire movie) is very interesting and refreshing. The final scene in which Cristi is dissected by his superior using the same linguistic devices he played on earlier with his wife is incredible. Some people complained the movie was too slow but it had to be...and I really enjoyed it.
6/10
I was conflicted about this movie the whole way through but the incredible, orgasmic ending almost had me convinced I liked it more than I did. James Franco was tremendous (as expected) and Danny Boyle has talent in spades, but I was disappointed in the movie's style, I guess. I understand Boyle had to pull out all the stops to make a movie about a guy trapped for 95% of its running time interesting, but I felt this movie was stylized to the point of oversaturation. Between all the glossy visions of ex-girlfriends and potential loves to be, memories of a family neglected, fantasies of escaping, hallucinations, jaunty, ironic pop tunes etc, I felt the realism of Aron Ralston's predicament was sacrificed. Maybe it's a pretentious take but I couldn't help but wonder how a director like Cristi Puiu or Bela Tarr would handle an identical story. I even wondered how it would compare to a movie like Buried, which I've yet to see. I probably should have expected it going in, but Boyle's version felt too much like a music video, tarted up with the predictable Hollywood themes listed above to make it more appealing. The flash worked very well in Slumdog Millionaire, not so much here.
7/10
I've never seen a Woody Allen movie before...this may not have been the best place to start (as it's not so much a movie as a series of skits) but there were still some really funny moments. The skits are all based upon taking questions from the book of the same title, taken to ludicrous extremes. The last and best skit, "what happens during ejaculation?", featuring a bunch of workers inside the body's pleasure zones, stomach, brain, eyes, etc, is a scream. Others don't work so well, but I was rarely bored.
2/10
This movie, something like a cross between The Notebook and Blade Runner, was a near-total dud for me. The cinematography was quite nice and the acting was fine - nothing else was enjoyable. The direction and editing was especially mechanical, with scenes broken up into 20-second chunks existing solely for characters to explain a plot point, then cut, and repeat (especially in the beginning). The script (adapted from a popular novel) is wooden and predictable from start to finish. None of the characters really say or do anything that feels believable, and I felt absolutely nothing for any of the people I was supposed to feel something for. Carey Mulligan, so good in An Education, seems wasted here - she spends her screentime moping around and looking cute. Andrew Garfield is fine despite his character being a string of clichés. Overall a major disappointment.
10/10
Simply put one of the best movies of the year, and an absolute crime if it doesn't get greater attention outside Canada. The story: the mother of twin twentysomethings Jeanne and Simon dies, and leaves behind a will stipulating the two deliver a letter each to their other brother and their father. The caveat being that the twins had no idea they had a brother and have never met their father.
Two journeys are told at once - Jeanne (and later with Simon)'s attempts to track down her long lost family in her mother's native country (fictional but a stand-in for Lebanon, it seems), and in flashback, the tribulations their mother went through in this same country years before.
There are plenty of twists revealed to the audience before the characters, which is a clever and disarming tactic because the wallop of an ending hits like a freight train when it's revealed to all. My only minor gripe is that director Denis Villeneuve sometimes shows a lack of faith in his audience, over-exposing things with unnecessary after-the-fact voiceovers. And the plot, while magnificently constructed, requires a certain suspension of disbelief to imagine all these events occuring the way they do.
But that doesn't take away from the enjoyment of the movie itself which is gripping, harrowing, and tragic in every sense of the word. Go see it.
4/10
Well I didn't really like this bad movie but I didn't hate it either, it was just kind of goofy...and not Road House goofy either. Nothing really seemed to make sense and the scares were ludicrous. I have to give credit to Ryan Reynolds who really seemed to be putting everything he had into the role of the possessed (or whatever he was) dad.
7/10
I find it easy to like a lot of bad movies and Road House was no exception - it was something I was in the mood for when it came on MoviePix at 10pm the other night, and it was a lot of fun. If you can't have fun watching Patrick Swayze and his blonde mullet tear people's throats out...well what's the point? I'd watch it again if I were bored.
8.5/10
Documentary about the financial crash of 2008, narrated by Matt Damon. I thought it was pretty great, very interesting (if a little hard to follow at first, for a simpleton like myself) and probably scarier than any horror movie I've seen in a while. The blame is spread around pretty evenly (none of Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr. or Obama escape unscathed). There are a couple of moments of Michael Moore-ish schlock that don't belong (I don't need a montage of Louis Vuitton and similar logos to remind me of the things rich people buy) and the ending is a little corny, but altogether a lot better than I thought it would turn out.
8.5/10
8.5 with the definitie possibility to move higher. This was the first Apichaitpong Weerasethakul movie I've seen and it had me spellbound from start to finish. A film about a dying man visited by all manner of ghosts and spirits (and who can indeed recall his past life), the movie is almost a little too opaque at some points, but in a good way - I feel like I want to watch it again and again until I get everything. The movie is beautifully shot and even the most absurd sequences (woman-on-catfish love? A son reincarnated as a red-eyed monkey?) are pulled off with such a deft touch it's impossible to imagine them any other way. Now I really have to get started on older Weerasethakuls.
7.5/10
Catherine Breillat's latest is ridiculous, silly, and completely unsubtle, but I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it in spite of all those things. This version of Sleeping Beauty takes place mostly inside of the Princess' dream, and I thought it was a lot of fun - sweet and charming (mainly because of the adorable actress playing the 6-year old Princess), but nice and fluffy. When the 16-year old Princess finally awakens into present day, things get a little...Breillat-y? Well this is the only one of hers I've seen, but from what I gather, yeah. It's less enjoyable and certainly prone to generating more than a few derisive snickers but I dunno, I still liked the movie on the whole.
5/10
I really liked the first act of this latest mindbender from Jean-Luc Godard - it takes place on a cruise ship, there's all kinds of voiceovers and shots that don't seem to relate to one another, and you get the feeling like you're watching parts of three different movies at once. It's kaleidoscopic but also very interesting. After that however I thought the film dropped off steeply - once we were getting to distended, uninteresting monologues and static shots where nothing seemed to ever come together, I wasn't feeling it.
8/10
I really don't know what to say about this one. Cristi Puiu takes 3 hours to tell a story that some Hollywood movies could smash into 3 minutes - a man named Viorel (played by Puiu), frustrated and alienated from a divorce, commits a series of murders. That's about it. The movie focuses on every minute detail in between and somehow, almost in spite of itself, it fascinates. Viorel is constantly shown to be on the fringe both figuaratively and literally, shot standing at the edge of the frame, outside doorways, and generally puttering around in the darkness - however, crucially, he isn't given a madman bent. In fact, there's barely anything notable or worthwhile about Viorel, and that's the point. More people walked out of this one than any other movie I saw at the festival but it really stuck with me.
7.5/10
Interesting semi-documentary featuring the filmmakers Lars von Trier and Jorgen Leth. Von Trier challenges Leth to remake his 1967 film The Perfect Human five times, each time with Von Trier providing a different set of obstacles. For example, the first obstruction says that the movie must be made in Cuba, with no shot longer than 12 frames. Another obstruction says that the movie must be entirely animated. It's very interesting to see Leth respond to each of his challenges (and he does, with gusto) and to see Von Trier, ego in high gear, attempting to "defeat" (althoug he would call it aiding) Leth. Lots of fun.
7/10
An interesting documentary on the artist Anselm Kiefer, who since 2000 has been constructing his own city in the South of France. Kiefer has built 43 buildings to house his artworks, and other towers, lakes, tunnels, and bridges. It's all quite impressive and director Sophie Fiennes gives plenty of respect to Kiefer's work, letting the camera linger over his sculptures for lengthy stretches. But as this was my third movie after working a full day, I was too tired to really appreciate it I think.
8/10
La Casa Muda (The Silent House) is a horror movie purportedly shot in a single, unbroken take (although the numerous plunges into darkness lead to skepticism), and it's also a simple story - a man and his teenage daughter head to an abandoned house that the owner hired them to clean up for him to sell. Almost immediately, strange things ensue. There is an impressive amount of suspense and tension, even if the scares don't always deliver there's still a lot to enjoy. Unfortunately, like Haute Tension, the movie feels the need to justify its own existence with a ludicrous plot twist, but there are so few good horror movies these days I find myself rather flexible when it comes to the story. Others might not be so forgiving though.
8.5/10
This movie takes a very basic plot - a man cheating on his wife with a young woman, namely his daughter's dentist - and turns it into something great. Proof you don't need a blindingly original story to make a good movie, I suppose. Everything is really well acted, and the direction is impressive and surehanded. The lengthy, unbroken shot of the husband's revelation to his wife is a masterpiece, and the ending is both beautiful and saddening.
7.5/10
France's entry in the Best Foreign Oscar race, which also won director Xavier Beauvois the Grand Prix at Cannes. It tells the true story of seven monks in Algeria who are taken hostage by the Armed Islamic Group of Algeria. The film focuses on the days leading up to their inevitable fate, and is a really nicely told, quietly moving portrayal of absolute faith. It was enjoyable but it didn't bowl me over - just a well done, satisfying movie. Lambert Wilson is also really good in the role of the head monk.
4/10
The ultimate removal however was Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's Biutiful, which never makes the slightest effort to engage the audience or make us feel any sort of pity for its put-upon, cancer-addled protagonist Uxbal (played by Javier Bardem with a stone face and fists shoved perpetually into his pockets, as if this alone is enough to invite sympathy). The movie is desperately grave and deals with what should be very emotive topics (human trafficking, impending death, abuse, the struggle to survive, righting our wrongs, etc) but they all glide by without hitting even the most minor of chords. Which is all inoffensive (if disappointing) enough but Inarritu commits one of my few cardinal sins of filmmaking when (slight spoilers) he repeats the mysterious opening scene from the beginning of the film in its entirety at the end - as if his audience is too stupid to realize the significance of such a scene and keep it in mind the entire time that they need it read back to them. Shameful.
7/10
I don't have a lot to say about this one except that I think I admired it more than I liked it. I also had to watch the movie with no subtitles (I speak French pretty well, but African and France French is a bit trickier) so that probably didn't help. It was very lovely to look at and it was definitely a sad story, but I couldn't help but feel removed from it most of the time. Still want to check out Claire Denis' other stuff though.
7/10
Better-than-expected documentary about a guy (director David Sieveking) introduced to transcendental meditation via a lecture given by his idol (director David Lynch). We follow along with him as he first becomes enamored and later jaded with both the philosophy and the director who led him to it. The movie does a good job of taking us along David's journey, and none of it really feels staged or as if he's going in to the process with an agenda. He comes across as a bit of a naif, and it actually works to the movie's benefit. The movie asks the routine questions about the TM movement's ethics, politics, cultish behavior, etc, but Sieveking seems hesitant to really try to blow the whole thing wide open. Probably because, as the movie implies, he's not sure he wants the myth (both of TM and of Lynch) destroyed himself.
8.5/10
Michelangelo Frammartino's sophomore effort, a delicious slice of dialogue-free slow cinema. The story follows a man, a goat, a tree, and a lump of coal, and is at turns happy, sad, tragic and amusing...Frammartino displays incredible respect and patience and you never get the feeling he's "stretching things out" - like the 'no dialogue' approach, everything feels completely natural and gimmick-free. It seems impossible to describe this one without selling it short but it really is a unique little gem, worth watching if you're looking for something different but wholly satisfying.
6.5/10
This is a frustrator. Gaspar Noe's interminable Enter the Void is a brazenly unique cinematic experience - especially in terms of visual style. The movie is a treat to look at, and comparisons with a drug-obsessed 2001: A Space Odyssey don't seem so ridiculous when you start watching it. After an unbelievable title sequence (watch here) and a tremendous first act, things steadily head south. The second act is less interesting but still enjoyable, but everything falls apart by the third and Noe seems to know it, throwing everything possible at the screen in any order in all manner of gratuity just hoping something good happens. A movie about the life and death of a young drug dealer and the relationship with his sister, there are lots of good ideas here but in no known universe is this film worth 2 hours and 45 minutes of anyone's time. A tighter edit could have made this a masterpiece, as it stands it's just a disappointment made all the more bitter by all the wasted talent on display.
8/10
This was a pleasant surprise because I'd never heard anything about it, but it seems a lot of people were mislead by the marketing campaign to believe it's some kind of horrror/suspense movie. The first 30 minutes certainly set the framework for it but then the movie goes in a completely different direction. In short, a 20-something is sent a package by an 8 year old girl named Abby containing a painting of a picture he took for a newspaper. Eventually he becomes tangled in a penpal/email/Facebook/texting friendship with Abby, her mother Angela, and her older sister Megan. I won't say anything else but it's a very interesting story (shot documentary style) that develops in very smart, unflinching ways. The acting is superb, my only nitpick was that the movie felt like it was treading water for the last 20 minutes. Still enjoyed it a lot though.
5/10 This was my first Manoel de Oliveira film. I figured the guy is 102 years old, might as well get started while he's still alive. But really I was disappointed. The plot is a young photographer summoned to photograph the body of the recently deceased Angelica. Soon the photographer's pictures of her seem to come alive and he's being visited by her in his dreams (or are they?). The movie is beautifully shot and often feels like a visual artifact from the 60's (in a good way) and de Oliveira's stoic direction is pitch perfect. However the story is largely uninteresting, the dream sequences are corny, and the ending is milquetoast. Basically I wanted to like this one a lot more than I did, but I won't let it sour me on the rest of the director's oeuvre.
9/10
I was really, fully in the grips of this movie from start to finish. I found everything about it absolutely fascinating. If it doesn't win Best Adapted Screenplay I'm going to be shocked. About the only minor fault I could find with it is that sometimes the movie feels just a little too...stylized? Glamorous? Something like that. But it's a small nitpick because everything really was great - the story, the dialogue, the music, the acting (Jesse Eisenberg strikes an incredible balance between being sharp and totally aloof at the same time)...I was really impressed.
8/10
Pretty cool Japanese horror/family drama from 1964. Centers around an old woman and her daughter-in-law. Waiting for their husbands to return from the war and living in poverty they resort to luring samurai to their deaths and selling their armor and weapons for cash or food. The brash friend of both husbands returns with news of their deaths, and starts up a romance with the daughter in law, much to the old woman's (extreme) consternation. I wasn't as in love with it as I hoped to be but I still enjoyed it a lot. The final scene with the woman and daughter was particularly incredible.
5.5/10
The more this film is in my mind (including while I was watching it), the more problems I find with it. Affleck certainly has talent as a director, but contrary to Gone Baby Gone, his source material fails him in a big way. Rarely is anything in a movie so off-putting as to when our anti-hero (here Affleck's bank robber) is saddled with all kinds of tropes to force us to sympathize with him - his mother abandoned him and his father's in prison; he wants to Get Away From This Life and Make a Change; he lives by a flimsy Hollywood code of morality and refuses to kill people; the "mob boss" has him by the balls, he's really handsome and really genuinely loves The Girl - all of this is well and good but he's a criminal, and no amount of prettying up can change that. I'll say no more for fear of spoilers, but needless to say I wasn't a fan of the direction his character went in.
I also thought the central relationship was extremely forced (as far as anything suggested in the movie's timeline, the entire thing takes place in the span of 4 days or so) and various plot points come and go only when needed (an incriminating tattoo or Affleck's character's daughter and ex-girlfriend). The ending is ludicrous, mawkish, and the definition of a movie taking the easy way out.
None of this I can really pin on Affleck - as I said, it's his material that doesn't live up to snuff. In fact the movie has its share of strong points - the acting is all-around top notch, the action scenes are exciting and very well-shot, and the pacing never really slows. A bistro scene involving Affleck, Jeremy Renner and Rebecca Hall that has us all guessing how much each knows about the other is particularly worthy of praise. I wish I could say the same for more of the movie though.
5/10
(Like 8 1/2, not trying to be cute with my rating...OK maybe a little)
Abbas Kiarostami's Five, aka Five Long Takes Dedicated to Yasujiro Ozu, is exactly that - five takes, each averaging about 15 minutes, of various things - a piece of a branch battling with the tide on a beach, a pier and the people walking on it, a beach in winter with dogs frolicking, a bunch of ducks on the beach, and the reflection of the moon in the pitch-black water. Tough thing to rate as it's pretty much what it says on the tin. I can't help but wonder if, like Kiarostami's Shirin, he's playing on the role of the viewer in cinema and the narrative structures that he will inevitably force onto what he's seeing...but then I also can't help but wonder if this wasn't already done by someone like Andy Warhol many years ago. Shirin was far more successful in that regard, Five is little more than a curio.
6.5/10
As before, this movie directed by Michael Winterbottom had a pretty impressive cast (Casey Affleck, Jessica Alba, Kate Hudson) but went nowhere, but it wasn't really hard to figure out why - the brutal, unflinching, and frankly horrific physical violence perpetrated on the women in the movie is cause for any distributor to run the other way. The movie is based on the Jim Thompson novel of the same name and stays true to his (apparent) gritty, no-B.S. realism. The story essentially is Affleck playing the role of a deputy sheriff named Lou Ford with a need to kill - or abuse, at least. A persistent D.A. eventually uncovers his secret but Ford stays true to his demons to the end. It's an interesting enough, very well-acted story (is Casey Affleck getting the consistent recognition he deserves yet?), but the whole time you can't shake the feeling something is missing - like its main character, the movie is too robotic, too removed, and you never really get sucked in enough into caring what happens. Too bad because it had a lot of potential.
8.5/10
Produced by David Lynch, directed by Werner Herzog, starring Michael Shannon, Willem Dafoe, Chloe Sevigny, Udo Kier and Brad Dourif, at first blush it's hard to figure why this one never got any kind of release...then as you watch it and realize it's absolutely insane, it sort of makes sense. For what's seemingly a mainstream film, it must be one of the most unmarketable ones made in recent history. Inspired by true events, Shannon plays Brad, a young man who goes insane after a trip to Peru (a land where Herzog spent a considerable amount of time) and kills his mother. The film opens with her death and tells itself in flashbacks, as told to Dafoe's detective by his fiancee (Sevigny) and friend (Kier). The movie confounds expectations at every turn, and it treads a fine line between genius and self indulgence, or being weird for the sake of it. As a huge Herzog fan I leaned towards the former, but I can't fault anyone for believing the latter true. What really makes the movie is Michael Shannon's over the top, desperately serious portrayal of a man insane. I'd compare this movie to Herzog's Bad Lieutenant, shot around the same time, but with the weirdness turned up to 11 (which is what I felt lacked with that film). A lot of fun.
5/10
Even though I'm not this movie's target audience, I like the three main actors involved and thought it could turn out funny enough. I laughed a couple of times but that was about it. I dunno, it was decent enough entertainment. Though the movie courts it only semi-seriously, it's tough to sympathize with Streep's character - torn between two handsome, successful, charming men, living in a gorgeous house, owning a successful business, three Stepford children...it's a bit much and you find it hard to really care, but I guess that's part of the fun.
7/10
1958 Norwegian "horror" movie, apparently counted among the best Norwegian movies ever. It's a story that still shows up in films today (I'm assuming the makers of Dead Snow were big fans) - a group of friends head up to an isolated cabin for some R&R, an urban legend about a jilted dead lover still haunting the area is told, one of the friends displays a seemingly supernatural connection with the lake, mysterious happenings occur. The film is sharply shot in black and white and contains a lot of beautiful, haunting gothic imagery, but (somewhat disappointingly) this is more of a whodunnit suspense/thriller than the creepy horror I was hoping for. A lot of time (and unnecessary plot exposition) is spent with the characters sitting around the cabin. In any event there was still a lot of interest here, and running not even an hour and a half in length, it's never a bore.
7.5/10
I missed most of the "classic" Kurosawa during the local repertory cinema's centennial tribute but I was at least able to catch Dersu Uzala last night (and hopefully Kagemusha on Sunday). The film tells the story of a Russian soldier named Arseniev and his friendship with mountain man Dersu Uzala, whom he meets while mapping the Russian forests and mountains. Essentially an odd couple road/journey movie, there isn't a whole lot new from a narrative perspective, but the film succeeds because of the chemistry between the two leads, and the movie's stunning cinematography and direction. At 144 minutes, the premise feels slightly stretched (much of Dersu and Arseniev's second meeting is just a restaging of events that occured in their first trek together) but it's such a beautiful film to look at, it's hard to really care too much.
9/10
Probably the best comedy I've seen in years...I was laughing pretty much non-stop. The story, the dialogue, the editing, the effects, everything is bang on and done with such earnestness and commitment, you'd have to have a heart of stone to not be won over. So good to see an American (Canadian?) made comedy that doesn't have to rely on swearing or dick and fart jokes to get a laugh. Just incredibly clever, incredibly aware, incredibly honest...and really fun. If you're having second thoughts because you don't like Michael Cera or the trailer looked stupid or whatever - don't. Just go.
9.5/10
Wow, this was so good. It left me with the same enraptured feeling (both while watching it and long afterwards) as two of my other favorite movies: Aguirre The Wrath of God and Stalker. The cinematography in this movie is so good I thought my heart was going to explode, and I'm a sucker for a good coming-of-age tale, as I've said before here. Basically this movie had everything I love in a movie. I'm being a dick by docking it 0.5 points since I thought the end was a liiiittle shaky but it's pretty damn close to a 10. If anyone can recommend something in line with this and the two other movies I mentioned (slow-paced, beautifully photographed "journey" films, in broadest terms), I'm all ears.
8/10
Pretty outrageous, silly, but ultimately very innovative Godard movie that surely must contain his most overt, vicious attacks on the bourgeoisie. It almost feels "too" Godardian in that respect, too over the top, but maybe that's the point. Hilarious, frustrating, endlessly self-referential, I thought it was great fun.
6/10
I don't think this movie has aged particularly well. What was (intentionally) shocking and controversial in the 90's is pretty tame today, and Stone's eclectic direction is more distracting and annoying. The first half of the film is entertaining, but the last half (after Mickey & Mallory's capture) is a pretty sharp decline. Disappointing.
8/10
Really spellbinding movie about one bored and alienated man's sleepless night. He cooks a gourmet meal, plays around with his sleeping wife, seduces his maid, makes art and finds a gun that may have belonged to John Dillinger. On its surface a pretty boring movie where not a whole lot happens, but I found it pretty captivating.
8.5/10
Was fortunate enough to see this with a live orchestra and 25 minutes of restored footage. I thought it was pretty great. The morals and themes are a bit tepid together but, considering this was 1926, it was undoubtably pretty risqué for its time. The effects were also surprisingly impressive.
9/10
Definitely a lot of fun, and some fantastic visuals. I find Nolan's movies often tie themselves up into knots but Inception avoided that admirably right up until the end when I suppose he just couldn't resist the temptation to leave things somewhat open-ended. Wasn't a fan of that. I thought the dual stories sat together somewhat awkwardly and took a long time to gel, and I was never really invested emotionally in the characters. But I guess it's easier to talk about what I didn't like. Otherwise it was a really great, really fun, really interesting movie that, in a perfect world, is what all summer blockbusters would aspire to be. I didn't love it, but I liked it a lot. I'm sure people keep waiting for the Nolan Midas touch to wear off, and it certainly had potential to here...but nope, not yet.
8/10
Actually a lot better than I thought it would be. The acting is pretty top notch (the German doctor in particular is like some weird Klaus Kinski/Tommy Wiseau hybrid), there's a good amount of suspense and tension throughout, the gore is as brutal as you'd expect...basically it delivers, which is more than most Fantasia movies have done for me this year. It's also surprisingly witty and totally depressing. As far as torture porn goes, it's pretty well up there in my opinion.
3/10
Incredibly disappointing. Why are we still making exorcism movies when it was all said and done (better) back in 1973? Just a note to the filmmakers, when you do a movie shot "handheld" style, as soon as you use non-diagetic music, you've completely betrayed your film. Additionally, your "cameraperson" should be filming the action as honestly as possible. Instead his filming (i.e. what we see) is so obviously directed, with the possessed girl shot from obtuse angles, through holes and behind fences, with reaction shots of the father and priest thrown in, when any sane person actually filming it would have trained his camera dead-on the possessed girl writhing around on the floor.
Finally the ending to this movie is one of the biggest cop-outs I've seen, almost felt insulting. Don't be tempted by the great poster when this comes out in a few weeks...total dud.
6/10
Kind of interesting action/horror starring Sean Bean in full Boromir mode as a knight searching for a first a way to quell the Black Plague that's ravaging his homeland, and eventually a necromancer. There was a lot of potential but I thought the film was mostly flat, although the way it juggled the characters and their morals (and the inevitable "who are the real good guys" moment) was well done. I dunno, I just think it mostly missed the mark and was pretty forgettable all told.
8.5/10
Surprisingly great, unheard of little movie I saw on a whim in the theatres. A 17-year old girl has to take care of her invalid mother and two siblings, living in this destitute loghouse in a barren, sparsely populated village. Her methhead father puts the house up as bond, so the girl has to either find her father or proof of his demise in order to keep supporting her family. Jennifer Lawrence as the girl is the movie and gives a fantastic performance, and the movie is consistently tense as she undertakes a brutal, undesirable journey with an inevitable ending. I thought the emotion was lacking a bit but otherwise, really good.
