seancriswell

I am amazed that people have the same response to this film as they do to Before Sunrise. My experience was the polar opposite of the one I had with the first film in this series. The dialogue in Before Sunrise was fresh, romantic, and funny. The characters were endearing, I cared what happened to them and I wanted them to be together. In Before Sunset the characters have become jaded. They have white people problems. Life just is not turning out how they had hoped. They have good jobs, and people who love them but it is not enough. They want the romance back in their life, for things to be new again. Where in the first film it felt like they respected each others opinion, they were free to disagree without judgement. Here it feels as though they are preaching at each other. I'm right because my experiences dictate that I'm right. Your opinions are less valuable then mine because you don't have the same worldly experiences as me. These are certainly not unusually drawn characters for 30 somethings with similar cultural backgrounds, and are probably accurate more times than not. However spending an hour and a half with no one but these two people was not the pleasure it was the first time around, and at times was insufferable. My respect for Hawke's character lessens even further in the third act when he begins to talk about his marriage. This is not a spoiler as we are to notice his ring right away and frequently throughout the first half. It is obvious he values little of the institution he has entered into, and instead has taken the typical modern approach to his vows. Perhaps and likely all of my issues with the film are Linklater's point. Perhaps these are typical views for people their age. my problem is I spent the first film with unique people. Characters who were looking at the world differently, with compassion and understanding. I couldn't wait to spend time with those people again. Those people are gone.

Schmaltzy baseball movie about a player enduring unbearable adversity to be much more than anyone could expect. Add to that the fact that it is true and you have a movie tailor made for me to love. So why didn't I? The easy answer is they white washed the story, and I think they did to a point. However this story was white washed long before it hit the big screen, and there is a valid reason for that. You will not find anyone in his family or that played with him that will not say that Robinson was not only a great ballplayer but a great person. A player who had every reason to fight, to be filled with venom, to give up. Robinson did none of these things even though no one would have blamed him if he did. That character prevails throughout 42 and is not the reason I would condemn this film. The problem with 42 is most of it does not feel authentic, although it does have some authentic moments. There are some scenes involving children that are especially problematic and will no doubt be greeted by most viewers with an eye roll. Robinson's teammates and wife are all painted with broad strokes and consequently we never get a realistic impression of their relationships. 42 also fails to give us a realistic look at racism. The racism either seems to be present in a character in its worst form or not there at all. It seems odd to use a word like nuance when talking about racism but I feel that is exactly what is missing from most of the conflict in 42. One relationship that 42 does well, and what saves it from being a total disaster is Robinson and Rickey. Ford is great as Rickey and Boseman is no slouch as Robinson which doesn't hurt. Their relationship is the only one given a true arc and their scenes together are the best in the film by far. Listening to Rickey talk about the abhorrent situations that Robinson endured is a far more emotional experience then anything we get to see in other scenes. As depicted in the film Rickey seemed to understand the difference between having empathy for Robinson and having sympathy, where other characters did not. This made him and Robinson the driving force behind everything that felt authentic in 42. I would be remiss if I did not give some credit to John McGinley when talking about 42. He portrays Red Barber, the Dodgers announcer during this period, and is a true stand out in a very limited role. His voice and cadence were perfect and really added to my enjoyment of the baseball sequences. 42 is a flawed, but not fatally flawed film. It is a mixed bag that I think many people will really respond to. If your a baseball fan it is worth your time.

The story could not be more simplistic. An American Male meets a French Female on a train and asks her to spend the evening with him in Vienna. What is not simplistic is the wonderful characters, and exceptional dialogue in Linklater's film. It is obvious that Jesse (Hawke) and Celine (Delpy) have a connection after their first conversation. As their day progresses their connection to each other deepens as does our connection with them. Before Sunrise is so special because we are not manipulated into connecting with them through tragedy, or violence, or sex. We connect with them as we do with people in everyday life, through the life experiences they share with us little by little as our relationship grows. This is true intimacy and is beautifully achieved here. The intimate, personal moments that Jesse and Celine share throughout the film are sprinkled amidst a plethora of other conversations during their night together. They discuss everything from palm reading to dancing, the conversation is never boring and never unnecessary. They don't agree on everything and through that disagreement we we are invited further into their personalities as their connection grows. Jesse and Celine do interact with other characters in the course of the film. Linklater perfectly blends these interactions as well. The supporting characters add to the film without over powering the main characters. These characters are also just odd enough to further strengthen Jesse and Celine's connection as kindred spirits, without ever becoming caricatures. Before Sunrise is a beautiful film. It made me want to rush off to Europe and spend aimless evenings wandering around foreign cities looking for romance. I suppose I will have to settle for revisiting this film and these characters in the future.

The tree of life and the fountain of youth. The possibilities for themes and visuals are endless. Unfortunately Aronofsky chooses to bog us down in a melodrama with two characters that he never gives us a chance to connect with. This film is trying very hard to be complex but the story arc is simple. A doctor is trying to save his dying wife. She knows what he will not accept. The rest is surreal visuals revolving around the afterlife. All of this would be a great idea if there were characters involved that I cared about. My second issue with the Fountain is the visuals. For a film that is relying heavily on visuals they are pretty bland here. If there is a bright spot I think it is Jackman's performance. I don't think I have ever seen him convey emotion in such a believable way. The Fountain had some promise but in the end never delivers.

So your watching a movie and it is very character and dialogue driven. Then you suddenly realize that your favorite character in the film hasn't said a word. I would say chances are your not enjoying the film all that much. I sought out The Brothers Bloom after loving Johnson's Looper last year, and liking Brick quite well after that. Hopefully The Brothers Bloom will be a little remembered blip on the directors resume as his career continues. It is the story of two orphaned brothers who at an early age develop a knack for the con. In my opinion a good con movie is hard to pull off. First of all you have to make the audience connect with characters who are doing deplorable things because that is who your story has to center around. I think Johnson does this well enough. Secondly the con needs to be written so the audience understands it, but it fools them. It also must be believable enough that the target would be fooled as well. This is my biggest issue with The Brothers Bloom. The major con is so dull in fact that I had little interest in any twist that would come. Johnson also falls into the annoying habit of twisting the twist. When a director does this too often I don't feel pleasantly fooled anymore, I feel annoyed with the direction the story has taken. The Brothers Bloom does again show off Johnson's ability to build an entertaining world. The characters are entertaining, each with a distinct style. I enjoy Johnson's use of score and music where necessary. Johnson is a stylish filmmaker and that is on full display here. Overall this film just falls short in its story arc, and at the end of the day that is the most important part of a con film.

Amelie is born to parents who while caring and intelligent never show her the affection children crave, and shelter her from fear that she has a heart condition. Naturally as soon as Amelie is old enough she wants to venture out into the real world. She feels like an outcast but soon realizes that the people in her life feel like outcasts for one reason or another and she sets out to do the things for them they will not do for themselves to make them happy. Unless you are heartless it will be impossible for you not to find Amelie endearing, and most of us can probably relate to her insecurities in one way or another. As Amelie works through her insecurities and tries to do something to make herself happy, as well as those around her, our fondness for her grows and grows. The title character is not the only thing that Jeunet does well in Amelie. The supporting characters are well thought out and blend perfectly in Amelie's world. This film is also beautifully shot. There are many breathtaking frames in Amelie. His use of color is also impeccable and adds much to the visual tone of this movie. The casting of Tautou can also not be overstated. She is perfect in this role, I can't imagine another actress playing her as well. The themes in Amelie are not unique and are presented in a straight forward way. But rarely have I seen them done so well, with such an endearing character, and with the style of this film. Amelie is an endearing feel good film that I will enjoy coming back to again.

Oldboy at its most basic is a revenge story, this film is however much more complex than that. It is a barrage on the viewers senses. Visually stunning as well as emotionally visceral. On the surface the narrative is very straightforward, but little is as it seems throughout the entire film up till the last few minutes. Not for the weak of heart Oldboy has some of the most violent sequences that I have witnessed. Oldboy does many things extremely well. From the opening sequence we are treated to a score that adds much to the film. Having a great score but knowing how to properly use it so as to not allow it to overwhelm the film is not an easy task. Park does it perfectly in Oldboy. Park also uses the split screen masterfully in this movie. This is another device that I have seen used to the detriment of a movie, not so here. Park is an artist with the camera. One sequence in particular stands out for me. The main character comes to a location that is familiar to him and important to a memory that he is trying to recall. As he recalls this memory he chases the memory of his younger self through the sequence. It is beautifully shot, we never lose our sense of time or place as can easily happen in such a scene. The visuals and score are not the only positives in Oldboy. The narrative is gripping and tense. Our protagonist is on a mission of revenge for what has been done to him. We are along for the journey every step of the way. We feel every emotion that he is feeling as his story progresses. We feel his fear, torment, and hatred. Like all good revenge stories as he begins to reek his havoc we wonder at what cost it is coming. Are his motives pure, and even of they are is it worth the price it is costing his soul. Oldboy handles these themes masterfully. I have two issues with this film. The first is I was never completely on board with the character of Mi-do. It is not a spoiler to say that we learn very early on that she has had a very similar experience to the protagonist. Despite this fact we are given she always seems to be much more aware than he is. He spends the film unraveling a mystery, she appears to understand most of what is happening but is just relying on him for protection from it. My second issue is the ending. While much is revealed in the last third and there are some very well done intense scenes, the last five minutes lacks the punch that a film like this needs. Oldboy is an amazingly directed film that is well worth your time. While you may not wish to revisit this world, you will be happy that you took the journey.

The story of a small village in Germany right before World War I. The White Ribbon is an emotional experience but not of the feel good sort. This film does not really have a central character, and only two characters that we can root for. While most movies with bleak story lines try to move our emotions from dark to light, Haneke takes the opposite approach. While the mood is never light, it still manages to become harsher and darker as the story progresses. Someone seems to be targeting the citizens of this small village. A handful of them are brutally injured at separate times and with no witnesses. As the search towards finding the culprit takes place we get to know many of the folks in the village. The teacher in the village is the one character that we can have a positive response to and he is also the narrator of the story. So we learn what is happening as he does. The women and children in this story are more seen than heard and that is the way that the men of the village want it. We see the harsh treatment of them throughout the film and it is hard not to have a visceral response to the abuse they are subjected to. This film thrives under Haneke's hand. Everything that is great about it is owed to him. The pace is slow and steady, so the viewers response grows with the film. Each shot is beautifully framed, the black and white setting is brilliant for this story. The dialogue is sharp and ambiguous. This is the type of film that I will not be in a hurry to revisit. However I am glad I did once and it will stick with me for a long time.

Larry Gopnik is having a good old fashioned mid-life crisis. He is a physics professor, and it is safe to say his job is not all he wants it to be. His students seem disinterested and the one that is engaged is trying to bribe him for grades. His teenage children are self involved, imagine that, so he is getting little fulfillment on that front. His wife wants a get, a divorce to us non-jews, and to top that off he had no idea anything was wrong plus she wants to marry his friend. All this seems like drama ripe for entertainment in the hands of the Coens. In my opinion there is little entertainment to be had. Where I think A Serious Man goes wrong is in it's character development. Besides our protagonist every other character in this film is severely under developed. In fact next to Larry I would say the next most developed character is Clive Park. He is the before mentioned student that tries to bribe Larry for a grade. The two scenes that Larry and Clive have together are the best in the film. This is unfortunate because they are very short, and Clive's situation amounts to little more than a plot device to be used later on in the story arc. Larry's whole family is ripe for drama and terribly underused, but the most egregious example of this his brother Arthur, played by Richard Kind. I was excited to see Kind in this film, however like most of the characters he is in little of the film and we don't get to know him. He has one crucial moment towards the end of the film, but of course nothing much comes of it and we are left wondering what he had to do with anything at all. What A Serious Man does right, is let us get to know the character of Larry. He is a very quiet unassuming man, yet those around him treat him as if he is the source of all their discomfort and misery. Larry never loses his cool in any of his personal interactions but simply always looks bewildered at whatever situation he is being confronted with. We are waiting for him to explode with emotion, but he never does. There are a couple of times when yet another character has told him to calm down that I wanted to explode for him. Larry is a really good character, unfortunately there is just not enough going on with the characters around him to truly engage us the way we need to be. I love the Coens, I love almost every film they have done. One of the things that I like best about their films is the characters they create. Even their most seldom used characters always feel like part of the world they are creating. They have nuance, they give us reason to laugh with them, cheer them on, or root against them. That is why this effort is so disappointing to me. A Serious Man is practically unrecognizable as a Coen brother film.

Undefeated is a documentary that follows a single season of a high school team in Memphis Tennessee, the Manassas Tigers. The film follows the whole team but really focuses in on four people, the coach and three players. One of the first things the coach says to the camera is, "football doesn't build character, football reveals character". This line may seem corny, but as we go on the journey with this team, and specifically these three players, we get an understanding of how true this line is. All three of these kids come from difficult situations with more than their share of obstacles to overcome. As we watch their stories unfold in this short period of their life we feel like we get to know these players. We grow to care for them, we rejoice with them when they succeed and our heart breaks with them when their situations get the better of them. Their stories are the emotional crux of the film. To read their stories in a review would not do them justice, their stories need to be experienced within the film. It is a journey worth taking. No less emotional is the story of the coach of this team. On the surface he may seem like one of a thousand coaches in this country, I can only hope this is the case. As the film unfolds and he shares more of his journey our respect for him grows and grows. Football is important to him, but way more important is the way he connects with the young men he coaches. he understands how important it is for young men to have an adult male to care for them, to connect with them, and to kick them in the butt when they need it. This coach seems to be a truly humble man with a true heart for the young men he coaches. Undefeated is a great, emotional watch. Not only one of the best documentaries I have seen in a long time but one of the best movies I have seen in a long time.

Sam (Rockwell) works for the company that is responsible for producing most of the world's energy. Sounds like a great gig but there is a catch. He work on the moon, what's worse is he is stationed there for the duration of a three year contract with no interaction except for GERTY (Spacey) the computer that aids him in his work. Sam knows three years is too long, he desperately misses his wife and daughter. He has begun to have delusions, he tells GERTY he is worried because he has begun talking to himself. Things turn real bad when he takes a trip on a rover to fix a piece of machinery that has broken down. Sam crashes the rover and it is at this point that things start to become fuzzy not only for Sam but for the viewer. Everything Moon is it owes to Rockwell. He is always a more than capable actor but outdoes himself in this role. The character he is playing goes through many extreme emotional states during the course of this film. Rockwell not only displays these emotions effectively but he keeps what could be an extreme character grounded enough that we continue to identify with him throughout the entire film. Spacey has a unique voice, one that doesn't always work to his advantage. It works perfectly here, the emoticons on GERTY are quite effective as well. Non-human characters are not an easy thing to pull off in film, but GERTY not only works it adds to the emotion of the film. If Moon has an issue it is in visuals. This was probably a low budget movie so I won't harp on it. I will say that everything inside the station is fine, everything outside the station less than fine. Moon is a very effective character study. Grounded sci-fi is rare and Moon is better than most that have tried. Even the twists feel less jarring than they do in most movies. A must watch for any film fan.

Full disclosure, I'm a Carell fan-boy, otherwise I wouldn't have gone anywhere near this movie. I should have stayed away. This is the type of comedy that has no appeal to my funny bone whatsoever. This film is trying desperately to be Anchorman but falls flat in every way. The first 20 minutes gives us a glimpse into the two main stars childhood. Presumably to give us some insight into the characters motivation, and to help us connect with them. Strike 1 and strike 2. Why would you spend 20 minutes of a comedy setting up your hero to be sympathetic to the audience if in the very next scene you plan on making him an unsympathetic egomaniac, inexplicable. Every single character in this movie except for Olivia Wilde's is played completely over the top. Correct that. Apparently they were told to play the character over the top, and then crank it up another notch. Of course all of this is forgiveable in a comedy if it does the one thing that everyone expects, make us laugh. As you can probably already tell Wonderstone fails here as well. Two jokes landed for me in an hour and a half. When the name of Carrey's characters television show is revealed and the scene after the credits start rolling. Except for those not even a chuckle. It's the same way as I feel about The Office post Carell (in case your wondering why I'm a fan-boy).

Take Shelter is the story of one man's quest to protect his family from an impending storm. Curtis (Shannon) begins to have premonitions that a storm is coming to destroy his world. These premonitions become so real that Curtis begins to prepare a shelter for the storm. Curtis is also fully aware that his premonitions may not be real. At the same time he is preparing his shelter he is also seeking help for what may just be delusions. This is the strength of Take Shelter. This film is superbly acted, and the story is laid out with precision. Going through the struggle with Curtis and his family is tense and mesmerizing. We know early on that Curtis is having these premonitions, but the way way Nichols unfolds the story, we are never quite sure when the real storm is coming. While I enjoyed many aspects of Take Shelter I didn't connect with it in the way I do in films I enjoy the most. Usually I know immediately why I don't connect emotionally with a film, with Take Shelter I am having a hard time pinpointing the reason. Overall I think the story just feels a little dry, and although the tone of the movie is pretty tense the stakes just never felt as high as they could. A fine film, and a worthy watch, but in the end average.

From the opening scene of A Separation I knew I would enjoy this film. The dialogue is smart and ambiguous. The shot is framed so that all your attention is focused on the two characters, you are hanging on every word. Invested in what emotion they are conveying and thus invested in them as characters right from the beginning. So it goes with A Separation a dialogue, character driven Iranian film that will have you invested throughout. The driving force behind this film is conflict. Nearly every character that comes in contact with each other has some sort of conflict at some point. How they react to the conflict engages us and drives the narrative forward. A Separation also makes nearly every character both sympathetic and unsympathetic at the same time. At any given time we are mostly unaware of who is lying and whether their motives are pure. As an American viewer I was also quite intrigued at some of the cultural conflict in this film. There is a married couple who are devout Muslims and this informs many of the decisions they make throughout the film. Their conflict as a result of their beliefs is not something that most of us can relate to. Even the religious devout in our culture would not allow these things to become a point of contention. For an outsider this definitely added to my intrigue within the film. A Separation is a well made intriguing drama. The writing is superb. The acting is very good, especially Maadi. While the visuals are not particularly note worthy, the scenes are framed very well, in a way that engages the viewer. A Separation is a must view for any film lover.

Compliance is the chilling true story of a young fast food worker who is accused of stealing from one of the restaurants patrons. A phone call is made to the restaurants manager, who is then requested to assist in the investigation. The entire story takes place within the confines of the restaurants back room. What transpires over the course of a couple of hours will have you running to the internet to see how much of this true story was fabricated for dramatic license. The answer appears to be none of it. Which is not only bewildering but also terrifying. For a film that is made by a relatively unknown writer and director and stars relatively unknown character actors Compliance is very well done. Zobel does a good job of giving us a sense of the environment that the characters reside in through subtle static shots. We are also given short glimpses into the characters lives which is allows for us to connect with them enough to be invested in the outcome of the story. This becomes very important as the story builds, and most of the characters become unsympathetic. Zobel also does a nice job of building the tension and drama in the movie. If you read about these events separate of the film you will have a hard time believing that any human could ever be so ignorant as these characters. However the events are a slow burn and Zobel does a great job of illustrating this. You will still be left shaking your head, but the events do seem more plausible as presented here. While Compliance is not a life altering movie it is very well done and worth your time. Compliance is a story that evokes sympathy, anger, and bewilderment all at once. That is a story worth telling.

It's March and there is finally a film released in 2013 that I was looking forward to going to the theater and watching. My expectations for this film were not super high, I certainly would never expect it to live up to the original which is one of the greatest films of all time. I expected a respectable origin story, great visuals, and maybe a few easter eggs thrown in for fans of the original. With Raimi directing two of the better young actors working today, and two other more than capable actresses I didn't feel that my expectations were too high. I was blown away...with how poorly this film turned out. In two hours plus there is no story here that we don't already know from the original material, none, the screen writing couldn't possibly have been lazier. The acting is bad, soap opera bad. Some may possibly give Franco or Williams a pass because of the material. However no one will give Kunis a pass when she is transformed into the wicked witch of the west. If you need a reminder of how an over the top stereotypical witch should be played go back and watch a few minutes of Margaret Hamilton's version. There are several new characters introduced, as expected and as there should be. Unfortunately not one of them worked. Some are introduced for humor, some to tug at the heart strings, and some for plot devices. Not one of them is effective, and none of them are memorable. Probably most disappointing of all were the visuals of the film. I know the 1939 version probably doesn't actually look better, but the fact that I had that thought several times during the course of the movie gives you a glimpse into how poor the visuals were. The only exception was the opening credits and first 20 minutes of the film. All this was the black and white portion of the movie. These are the only moments where it is not obvious that the actors are on a sound stage going through the motions. The Wizard Of Oz was perfect family entertainment. Whimsical, humorous, frightening, and endearing. The characters were one dimensional, yes, but they were fun and we cared about them. Oz The Great And Powerful is none of these things. All I wanted was a glimpse back into aspects of the original. Instead I received my worst theater experience since Spiderman 3. Wait who was responsible for that one?

Holy Motors is a day in the life of a performer. We see Oscar (Lavant) picked up by his driver/assistant, he is told that he has a certain number of appointments that he must attend throughout his day. Soon after we learn that at each appointment he is to play a new character. Who he is performing for and why he is performing is for the viewer to decide for themselves. There in lies my problem with Holy Motors. There is no narrative to speak of, and there is no character development. Unless of course you consider the fact that Oscar becomes exhausted from all of his appointments character development. There is one positive in Holy Motors, and that is Denis Lavant. He transitions flawlessly from one character to the next, and portrays each character convincingly. I would say that Lavant is giving my second favorite performance of 2012, next to Day-Lewis in Lincoln. However once again my issue becomes that I am given no reason to care about any of the characters he is portraying. It's as if I am watching a very good audition. If I was casting a movie I would hire Lavant, if I'm looking to enjoy a film for two hours, no thanks. Holy Motors is deliberately bizarre and surreal so there is an audience that it is appealing too. I am just not that audience which I'm sure is no skin off Carax's back. For me Holy Motors is simply artistic ****.

City of God follows the fortunes **** of children growing up in a poor, crime infested part of Rio de Janeiro. The story centers mainly around two characters. Each with very similar lives, but who take vastly different paths. This juxtaposition is what drives the narrative in City Of God, and what makes it so compelling. Rocket feels out of place in the world he lives. he wants to be a photographer. We know from the moment we meet him that he longs to rise above the horrendous poverty and crime that envelopes him. He stands out in this world, others are naturally drawn to his soft temperament and demeanor even if they don't realize the reason. Rocket does not readily have the means to rise above this world so consequently he comes across many stumbling blocks in his life. One of the more interesting sequences in the film is when Rocket concludes that he has no other options than to resort to the life most of his peers have. How this decision plays out results in some of the more lighthearted moments in City Of God. While Rocket's path may not be more interesting than others in the story, it is the most sympathetic. Li'l Ze is the polar opposite of Rocket. He doesn't long to rise above this world, he longs to rule over it. The perverse crime and violence he sees all around him doesn't hinder him, it compels him. Li'l Ze earns the kind of respect that comes from brute force, and he learns these tactics at a frighteningly young age. If Li'l Ze is going to be a criminal he is determined to the most powerful criminal in the City of God. This is his only motivation, and what he allows to define his existence. There are many other characters in City Of God. This film has lots of moving parts. However most of the other players move within the framework of the two main characters. Rocket and Li'l Ze are the black and white of the movie, while the other characters represent the shades of gray. It is an interesting way to tell a story, and works exceptionally well here. If I have an issue with City of God it is with the way the movie was shot. We get very few static shots in this film. Everything is quick cuts and shaky camera. While this style never completely keeps me from enjoying a film, it can detract from my enjoyment some. It is very hard to get a sense of time and place when this style is employed, City if God was no exception to this. It also make it difficult to differentiate between the good and bad acting within this style. I suppose this can work positively for the director, but I still consider it a detriment. Overall I would consider City of God a great crime drama. The story is extremely well told, with many interesting memorable characters. This is the kind of movie that is still with you weeks or months after you see it. I am looking forward to revisiting it in the future.

This documentary follows the disturbing story of a family and their missing 13 year old son. They think their life has returned to them when their lost son is found in Spain. This is just the beginning of one of the most outlandish stories of crime that you will ever hear. The details of the events are given to us in little bites. Each step more bewildering than the last. Each new player makes us wonder how anyone could be so blind, careless, and just plain stupid. There are a couple of intriguing twists in the last third of the story that make this film worth the watch. There is one shot in particular where no dialogue is used that perfectly sums up this film. But overall this documentary simply plays out like a high concept episode of 48 Hours.

This film is what I would consider an epic piece of art. There are so many themes running through the characters in this film, it would be impossible to cover them all in a book let alone a review. There is something here for everyone. You will find something to connect with, something to enrage you, and something to make you somber. There were certainly some scenes in this movie that I did not enjoy, that took me out of the film I did watch the theatrical version. Perhaps I need to watch the television version for more context. I did enjoy this movie throughout and would recommend it to anyone looking for a thoughtful, artistic film.

Usually I am not a fan of modern movies acting like old time movies, but of course the Cohen brothers made it work for me. This is not my favorite film of theirs but it none the less has many of the elements of their movies that I enjoy. The dialogue is great and the characters are interesting enough to give us reason to care about them. The plot line keeps you guessing because we are only given a little bit of information at a time. After all is said and done the narrative is actually rather simple and straight forward. It's the way that the Cohen brothers get you there that make it a good time.

I enjoy a really good, intelligent thriller. Unfortunately there are usually only one or two a year that end up fitting that criteria. Broken City is not one of them in 2013. There are many good actors in this film but all are wasted here. The films first half hour is not bad but quickly falls off the rails. Much of the story is predictable, and what isn't is put together for our protagonist in a boring unbelievable way.

This was my first Kurosawa film and I was not disappointed. I am not one to talk about film length very often, I think a film should be however long it takes the director to tell the story. I will admit however when I fired up Seven Samurai on Hulu and 3:46 appeared at the bottom I was very worried. Making it through a 1954 foreign language action film of this length did not seem like something i was ready for. Kurosawa however doesn't waste a scene in this film even if many scenes are a little more on the nose than I would prefer. My problems with the film are the same problems that I have with a lot of classic films. All of our characters are one dimensional which makes them fairly predictable. We know what purpose they will serve in the plot almost from the moment we meet them, to the point where we can predict which characters are probable to live and which will likely die. I also have an issue with the portrayal of the peasants in this film. The peasants are the center of our story and are treated with disdain by all of the characters around them. While this is understandable in the context of the film, I felt throughout that Kurosawa treated them the same way. Every peasant, except possibly one, in this film is treated like a fearful moron. Often they are seen running around aimlessly babbling incoherently to each other. When they do engage our heroes in conversation they have nothing to add to the process that is transpiring. There is no better evidence of this than in one of our seven heroes. As soon as we meet this character we know he will be a part of our group, yet he is always treated like a punch line. He is treated like that by the other characters because he is written like that by our story teller. In one of the plot twists midway through the film it is revealed he is a peasant. This comes as no surprise because of the seven samurai he is the most peasant like. Each character must fit into a stereotype. What engaged me in this film is the glimpse into the culture as well as the cinematography. For a movie made in 1954 it looks amazing. We are transported into this world through the landscapes, through the poverty that is portrayed visually, and through the way the characters interact with one another. Kurosawa also does a fantastic job with the action in this film. In a movie that the plot revolves entirely around a village protecting itself it would have been easy to just piece action scene after action scene together. Kurosawa never does this, the action is always handled in a very intelligent way. Giving us just what we need to get the next part of the story. Overall I enjoyed this film quite a bit, and am looking forward to seeing more of Kurosawa's work. I am reluctant to give classic films like this star ratings, as they rarely engage me the way they need to emotionally to warrant consideration in my favorites, or multiple viewings. This film reminds me of Citizen Kane in that I respect it more than I love it, and will probably reference it more than I will watch it.

Another well crafted movie by Bigelow. While after hearing all the praise for this film I expected to love this movie more than I did, I still felt that this was a very strong film. While it may take a little time to get moving, the last third is a as entertaining as any movie I have seen this year. Very strong writing, visuals, and acting. This is one of the better movies of 2012.

A well crafted, well acted, tense war movie. The book ends of this movie are about as entertaining as a film can be. My problem with this movie comes in the middle third. There are some things at play here that took me out of the film completely and seem very out of place with the rest of the movie. Overall this is a very strong film.

Really enjoyed this film. This is my second Kiarostami film and what strikes me most about his movies is the way he weaves intrigue into very simple plots and dialogue. The intrigue in Close Up is far and away the strength of this film. The visuals and acting are not particular strong or weak, so Kiarostami keeps your interest by never giving you too much of the story at once, but by giving you small bites that eventually lead up to a pretty satisfying whole.

Every once in a blue moon a romantic comedy gets made that engages you with the characters and breaks away from the usual romantic comedy tropes. Silver Linings Playbook is that film. The story revolves around two people battling similar behavior issues. Each have lost their spouses, although in much different ways, and have coped with their losses in different, but equally destructive ways. The movie revolves around the building of their relationship and their friend and family dynamics. While this film is not formulaic it does fall into some bad habits towards the end, and the twist that is meant to impact the third act actually means very little in the grand scheme. Where this movie excels is in the characters interactions with each other. Everyone in this film looks at our two protagonists as if they are nuts, but what this movie does so well is show us that everyone is off their rocker, even if we don't all show the manifestation of it in the same way. A great, touching story with amazing performances down the line. This movie lives up to the hype it is receiving.

In my estimation you must show two sides of a subject to consider yourself a documentary. We see maybe two or three shots of various politicians saying slightly inflammatory things and this is the only opposing perspective we receive. Then in the the final half hour of the film we see our heroes admitting that most everything they did during the first hour and a half was misguided, but they redeem themselves with their actions at the end. There is no evidence in this film that the group Act Up had anything to do with the progress that has been made in Aids research. Their is also no evidence in this film that the politicians that they demonize stalled Aids research in any way. I'm sure that this film is getting the positive publicity that it is because it revolves around the scariest most deadly disease of the last 30-40 years. However if you are going to pass your film off as a documentary as pure fact and not an editorial then you need to give me some facts to hold on to. This is no documentary.

An intelligent slow paced thriller. A very intriguing story line with very good acting across the board. The story slows almost to a crawl during the middle third and came very close to losing my interest. The twist at the end and the intrigue set up at the beginning however are enough to make this a strong watch.

I am reluctant to give any movie a 10 rating. I like to reserve these ratings for those rare movies that to me are perfect and stand the test of time. After viewing Social Network for the third time I firmly believe that it fits the bill. This is my favorite movie of the last few years. This movie looks amazing, thank you Mr. Fincher, the acting is great across the board. What really sets this movie apart is Sorkin's rat a tat dialogue. From beginning to end the script is perfect and the star of the show. Don't be fooled by the name at it's core this movie is not about facebook. It is a pretty poignant social commentary on 20 somethings in this country. Not to be missed, I can't wait to see this again.

This movie means well with the message it is putting forth, but unfortunately never rings true. I enjoy Helms and Segel both as actors but here they are given characters that have little to no nuance. Add to that the fact that the story is very contrived and you have a film that id very hard to connect with.

Not everything in Tarantino's filmography can be as good as Pulp Fiction or Basterds. For me Django falls a little short of those lofty expectations, but a pretty good Tarantino film is better than most movies in any given year. Django is gonna get a lot of comparisons to Basterds because they are both revenge fantasies at their core. While that may not be fair it is natural given the very similar plot arcs. While I still think I would have preferred Bastreds if it had been made second because of two of the best scenes ever put into film, it is hard to say because Django did feel familiar while Basterds felt like something you had never seen before. There is still plenty to love about the movie. As usual this film is very dialogue driven with biting humor and some dark overtones. Nobody in film ever uses dialogue to build tension like Tarantino and there is plenty of that at work here. Performances are great almost across the board, especially Waltz and Dicaprio. Foxx gives a nice, understated performance as Django. My only beef with the performances was surprisingly Jackson. Although I think that is more a product of the character than his performance. If the usual Tarantino stylized violence is your cup of tea, there is enough of it on display here to get your fill. For me this movie goes off the rails just a bit in the final third. I never felt like Tarantino knew how to end this film and it ended uo being the weak link in another very good Tarantino vehicle.

A perfect Christmas movie, if not a perfect film. This is one of the movies that you revisit every year, and is a joy to do so. A joy to talk about with friends, and a joy to recite your favorite lines. This is one of those movies where when the next scene pops up you think, oh yeah I have been waiting for this part, just delightful throughout. I love the narration in this film, the poetry of of the narration against the story of this young man adds humor in almost every scene. There are also many great tender moments in this comedy. Ralphie's moment with his mom after beating up the bully, and his father giving him the bb gun at the end are my two favorite. I look forward to watching this movie every year, I hope TBS never ends there 24 hours of A Christmas Story.

The feel bad movie of the year. While I would never dislike a movie based on it being depressing alone, I never feel like The Grey earns the emotional punches that it throws. This film is well acted and shot very well, you may actually feel cold while watching this film there is such a strong sense of atmosphere. While I understand that the wolves are meant to mirror a lot of the themes in this film, I ultimately feel that everything they contribute could be done by simply using the elements. The reason this matters to me is because most of the havoc that the wolves are causing ring false to me and take away from the characters who need to be fleshed out much more than they ever are. In the end I think that is what keeps this movie that is trying to say a lot about life from saying much of anything at all.

A gritty, realistic drama centered around a day in the life of a recovering drug addict. The film centers around a man named Anders who is released from rehab for one day in order to go for a job interview. The heart of this movie centers around his relationships and how they relate to his substance abuse. Each new character we encounter, and some that we only hear about, gives us a glimpse into Anders joys, pains, and ultimately his soul. This gives us a very profound look into what can drive addiction while never letting Anders off the hook for his life choices. It is very rare to see a film tackle this tough topic in such a realistic way, and thus makes this a great cinematic experience. The director also does a tremendous job of giving us a sense of place in this film, there are many shots that are breathtaking and add to the enjoyment of this movie. I can not recommend this film strongly enough.

Talk about a movie that people are going into with preconceived notions. Has there ever been a movie that people have had so much to say about before they even see it? I was no exception to this, I loved the first trilogy and had read all the publicity about directors, how many films would be made, and the format Jackson chose to film in. After finally seeing the movie and reading many reviews I have to say there was very little about this installment to the franchise that disappointed me. Is this film perfect? No, but few film are. Is the pacing leisurely? Yes, but does anyone remember Fellowship. Does some of this feel more child like than the other three movies? Absolutely, just like the source material. I think what I love about this film and a lot of what I love about the original three can be summed up with two words: world building. Jackson does an unbelievable job building this world, every creature feels unique and in its place, every setting the same. The introduction of the dwarfs exemplifies this perfectly, I love how each set of creatures are are prone to certain characteristics but each character within that set have very unique personalities. This is just one example of his world building but can be seen across every element of the story. This of course is not just a testament to Jackson but also Tolkein's source material. I thought this movie had exceptional acting almost across the board. Freeman and McKellan in particular were fantastic. I think Freeman was a better Hobbit then any of the actors in the previous films. Like its predecessors this movie has many lighthearted moments, some stunning visuals, some pretty cool action sequences, and plenty of time to immerse yourself in it all. I for one will be looking forward to the next two films.

I love the Coen brothers. I will get that out of the way first off. While I didn't love this movie, I did like it quite a bit. This film is full of interesting characters and even more interesting imagery. Like most thoughtful movies it is a lot unravel in written word for wannabe critics like myself. The acting and writing in this movie is first rate, the scenes with Turturro and Goodman are especially entertaining and the highlight of the film. This movie does drag a bit through the first half, and can feel a little like a rip off of The Shining at times. But overall this movie is more than a little interesting, worth more than one viewing and will keep you thinking about its meanings probably for years.

This is a movie that is trying way too hard. While trying to be completely inclusive in talking about religion as a christian I feel that it alienates everyone. Our protagonist is instantly drawn to each new faith he comes upon, while we are given very little reason as to why he does. The acting during the book ends of this movie is pretty poor, and the script is sub par. The middle third of the movie is the strong point, and also where the movie excels visually. I was impressed with the way that they built Pi and Richard Parker's relationship. I expected Pi to be cuddling with his tiger moments after being stranded alone on the boat with him. Instead there are many moments of dread and even after one moment where he can touch Richard Parker he still respects him as a wild animal at the end of their journey. The second bookend has as many problems as the first, and the emotional punch that they are trying to achieve at the final reveal is neither earned or evokes much emotion. Overall this is a rather mediocre film.

I get so excited when a movie actually lives up to my expectations, and Lincoln does. I have been trying to temper them ever since I found out our greatest actor would be playing our most popular president in a movie written and directed by one of the greatest film makers ever. Thankfully this film lives up to every bit of the hype. First off this movie is absolutely gorgeous. The feel of the era comes through in every single frame. Spielberg captures the image we have of Lincoln as a man perfectly. There are so many shots that we get of Lincoln's profile or where he is walking out of a room and his presence is captured perfectly. This is also a perfectly written script. Again the language is written perfectly for the era and events that we are witnessing. Last but certainly not least the acting is superb across the board. Lewis is every bit of Lincoln that we expect him to be, he captures the image we have of Lincoln in every single scene. Maybe most amazing is that all the other actors never seem dwarfed by Lewis's presence. Whether this is from great casting, acting, or writing doesn't matter, all that matters is that it all works seamlessly. The only reason this movie doesn't get a perfect 10 from me is that there are a few scenes with the "Spielberg cheese". Thankfully they are very minimal, but they will take you out of the film for a moment or two. Otherwise this is a perfect movie, probably my favorite of the last two years.

A well acted, well directed movie with quite a few story problems. As usual Denzel chews up the screen and is worth the price of admission alone. The crash at the beginning of the film is fantastically shot, super intense, and jarring. Most of the story problems come from the relationships or lack there of throughout the movie. We are given little back story in some cases, while new relationships are severely under developed and quite unbelievable. So while I do feel like we become invested in our main character and are invested in seeing him change his life, the emotional payoff is a little underwhelming because we care little if any about anyone else in this film. Another liked it didn't love it Denzel film to add to a pretty long list.

An apt commentary on this generations view on marriage. Williams does a great job as the wife with eyes for a man who has moved in across the street. Rogen is more than serviceable as the husband who is loved but has become as uninteresting to his wife as the chicken that he cooks for the cookbook he is writing. Williams and Rogen's scenes are among my favorite in the film, and I spent most of my time wondering why she preferred the man across the street who is played, rather boringly, by Luke Kirby. While my main issue with this movie is that a good portion of the dialogue is a a little to on the nose, for the most part I thought this film was very well written and I love the overall message that is being sent. While this movie is about the characters and relationships within the story it is worth noting that for this type of movie this film is beautifully shot and never dull to look at. I highly recommend this movie

A beautiful, atmospheric film. I was not surprised to find out that this director started as a photographer. This film is gorgeous and his framed shots are absolutely amazing. This is the epitome of a character driven film, so if you need your loose ends tied up neatly, flashy action, or an over obvious script, stay away. This film centers around three main characters who all have different responsibilities in a murder investigation. That investigation remains secondary however and the intrigue comes from the three main characters and the revelations they make about themselves as they interact with each other over the course of less than 24 hours. Each one has an interesting story arc and are as unique as they are different. So why did I give this movie an 8 instead of a 10. In the end the movie is just a little bit too ambiguous for me. I don't fault the film and am not even sure how I would change it. However for me to give a movie a perfect score, it needs to resonate perfectly with me on every level. While this film was close it fell just short of hooking me emotionally the way I needed it to.

A unique completely entertaining documentary. It starts slow but before you know it you are on the same head spinning ride that our supporting players went on. Is this all real or an elaborate prank? We may never know. But I will sure enjoy discussing it with anyone who I can get to see this film.

This is a film that is very hard to unwrap in a short, written review. There is a lot to engage you and ponder after, and in that regard I think this is a film that I will revisit and talk about many years down the road. I was surprised at how little of the fantasy that I have heard so much about made up very little of this film. I do think this is probably a good thing, this movie at its heart is about poverty. It paints a very painful picture of the people who live in this area called The Bathtub. There are many layers to both the characters in this film and their story arcs. I believe the performances to a person were solid if not spectacular. I am reluctant to say that this film looks amazing, because the world that the director builds is so dreary and depressing. However he conveys this perfectly and to me that means this film looks amazing. As with a lot of movies it seems that in the last half hour the director is unsure of how to end his story, so some things end up going on that may make you shrug a bit. The scene with our protagonist on a boat is probably my favorite in the entire film and since this is very close to the end I think the story did a decent job of giving us something to hold on to. This is a must see and it will be interesting to see where this film maker goes from here.

I am a **** for a mushy family melodrama. I am a **** for a Matt Damon movie. I am a **** for anything Scarlett Johansson has going on at all. I also like most of what Cameron Crowe has done in his career. So to say I thought I would enjoy this movie is an understatement. Unfortunately it failed to grip me in very many areas. There are some touching family moments, and a bit of humor to enjoy. But for the most part I remained disengaged for most of this film.

Another mixed bag Bond film. Plenty of the typical action and tropes throughout, including of course the Bond girls. I love the stripped down version we have of Bond now, and there are a couple of humorous moments to highlight these changes. I enjoyed Bardem's villain for the most part although I do feel like the praise is a little overstated, there were times when he didn't have a lot going on and others when what he was doing was more than a little confusing. One of the most disappointing things about this movie was Bond's back story, or lack there of. I love a film with a good, dark back story and while I appreciate the effort here in that regard it falls well short of the mark giving us very little actual story in that regard. Overall this Bond falls short of the other Craig films for me, but ranks better than the last few Brosnan films.

High school kids masquerading as characters from an old school hard boiled detective movie. This is an interesting premise, and one that you can tell Johnson probably wanted to make from the moment he decided he wanted to make movies. Unfortunately there is little going on of interest past the niche premise. Some of the acting and writing is pretty decent here, so you will not be bored. However there is nothing in the story or characters that makes you care what happens to them, which gives you no emotional tie to anything that ultimately happens. Overall a disappointing film.

For me this is by far Tarantino's second best movie. The first scene in this movie is one of the best and most intense that I have seen in any movie...ever. The way that Tarantino can put together such a lengthy scene like this, packing a punch with the dialogue, the intensity, and developing his characters. In one scene we can see what kind of character Waltz will be through the entire film. Absolutely brilliant. The opening scene and the scene in the bar, which lasts probably half an hour by itself, are enough to make this one of my favorite movies. There are a couple points at which this movie drags just a bit, and this is what keeps it from being a perfect 10 in my opinion. In my estimation Tarantino has three movies: Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and Basterds, that show that he is a brilliant story teller, writer, and casts his movies flawlessly. It is a shame he cannot show these capabilities every time he makes a film.

I was very excited to revisit what I considered one of my top 50 or so films after a few years. I have to say it was more than a little disappointing. I do understand why people, including myself, have become so attached to this movie. Spacey's performance is fantastic, the reveal at the end of the film is still exciting and fun, and there are some very memorable, quotable lines. What I forgot about are some of the problems with this film, and they are numerous. First of all for a thriller this movie spends a whole lot of time with nothing going on. While most of the performances are ok, I still have no idea what they were doing with Del Toro's accent. The score is pretty poor. Once the final reveal happens there are countless plot holes that will never be explained. While I still like this movie based on the two strongest aspects of the film, and will probably revisit it again in a few years. I will not recommend this movie as strongly the next time it comes up with someone who has never seen it.

It has been interesting to see the great divide among critics on this film. I have to say I can understand anyone who either hates or loves this film. This is because I fall in the middle in so many areas. This film is divided into 6 distinct parts with most of the actors playing a different character in each section. This is both the problem and everything that is right with this movie. There are 4 sections of this film where the story is extremely intriguing, the acting is spot on and there is a nice emotional hook at the climax of the story arc. There is one time period that I wish would have been left out of the movie all together. I believe it is meant to be the comedy relief of the film. Unfortunately it doesn't get any laughs, has 3 or 4 characters that are reprehensible, and doesn't seem to be needed to tie the other stories together. There is also one story line that sums up the way I feel about the movie quite nicely. The plot in it is not particular interesting, but it does have one of the better characters in the movie in it, and is very necessary to tie together some of the other time periods. Much has been made about the makeup in this movie and again I see what a lot of people have found disturbing about some of these makeup jobs, there are 4 that are really poorly done and can take you out of the movie. While I was watching this film I had mixed emotions as well. For probably the first hour I was wondering if I would ever be interested in any of these characters and at times was quite bored. Then the movie picks up steam and I became quite intrigued by what was happening. By the third act I was hooked by the 3 or 4 of the story lines, and the payoff in each was very good. I do have to add my favorite parts of this film come in the direction. The way that the time periods are cut together and the transition devices they use are phenomenal. The score for this film is also fantastic. The way this film is put together and the quality of a couple of the time periods will have me revisiting this film in the future.