Reviews

10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Prisoners (2013)
8/10
Universal Imprisonment
20 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The title Prisoners suggests far more than the viewer would be led to believe. There are the obvious forms in that of the kidnapped children and the possible suspect, Alex (Paul Dano), whom one of the girl's fathers, Keller (Hugh Jackman), abducts to retrieve information from. However, these two examples are only the surface of both film and title as Denis Villeneuve's two-and-a-half hour crime thriller is a case of a cryptic nature.

Exploring the film, we are first greeted by the image of a forest – an establishing mechanism to give the feel of the wild – as Keller recites the "Our Father" and his son shoots and kills his first deer. Keller congratulates his son and remarks that if his father ever taught him anything it was to, "Pray for the best, prepare for the worst." This exposition places Keller as a primal being; a man that clearly recognizes the importance that the father serves and categorizes hunting as a rite of passage (the importance of the first kill and the religious connotation he places over the act reinforce that). Now, juxtaposed with Keller is Franklin (Terrence Howard): father to Joy (Kyla Simmons), who along with Keller's daughter, Anna (Erin Gerasimovich), are the abductees. The first time we meet Franklin is on Thanksgiving – the day of the kidnapping – with a trumpet in hand as he plays an awful rendition of, "The Star Spangled Banner" (a song that Keller is jokingly rumored to sing in the shower).

Delving further into the picture, we meet Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal), the officer assigned to the missing persons case and our balance between good and evil. Our introduction to Loki is on Thanksgiving as well and while Keller and Franklin celebrate the holiday together with their families – unknowing of their daughters' abduction – our triumphant detective sits alone in an Asian diner. A self- implemented sense of isolation perhaps due to some past discrepancy is felt. Wholly dedicated to his job it is rare that we see Loki anywhere but the office or patrolling – to be honest I cannot remember if we ever see the man at his home – leading to notion of imprisonment by his occupation.

Now, the theory of universal imprisonment in the film is further implemented by Roger Deakins' cinematography. Most houses are shot like enormous multi-room jail cells and moments when the cameras hover above Loki at his desk feel darkly voyeuristic (as if we are viewing the man not through the fourth wall but plexiglass). In fact, one of the most interesting aspects I found of the film is that the only literal prisoners - being the daughters and Alex – are rarely ever seen. The film is not about them as much as it is the captives who believe to be free, who believe to be in the right.

This sense of morality can be explored through Keller and Franklin. In the aforementioned opening scenes the polarity created between the two men could not be greater and that is where much of the film's greatest tension comes from as well. On one hand, you have the devout Christian, a patriot, a former alcoholic – clearly a flawed yet conscious man - whose primal tendencies may very well lead him to solving the puzzle. While on the other, you have the nuclear familial father: knit sweater, non-threatening lifestyle, and an overall sense of right and wrong. A man who is thrown into the "act now, think later" mentality of Keller and begins to suffer from attacks on his own sense of morality. Our foundation of the film is the image of one father with gun in hand and the other with a trumpet. How could one expect them to work together in a cohesive manner?

This sense of chaos and the balance that Loki instills keeps any possibility of these characters being shackled at bay. It is not until the film's third act when the "big reveal" is made that we realize truly how much the title, Prisoners, encapsulates. It is a marvelous twist in not the way that it makes the viewer gasp but the depth it adds to each and every character. The surface it seamlessly breaks allowing for a distinct emotional connection to form. It is the knowledge of Keller's father's suicide and his alcoholism that creates the notion that while he is our anti-hero, he suffers from deep abandonment issues (creating the driving force in his actions of doing anything to save his child) and is as much of a prisoner of himself as the others in the film. It is not until the red herring sub-plot of Bob Taylor (David Dastmalachian) – a grown man who was kidnapped as a child and has since never been able to escape the sensations of it - that the viewer is able to understand the psychological ramifications of imprisonment. I have seen critics complain about the use of the character, Bob Taylor, yet it is through his demise that we are able to finally view characters such as Keller, Franklin, and Loki through a new lens that creates the understanding and empathy necessary to immerse yourself with the picture.

While it only covers a mere week, Prisoners is a generational exploration of the ways people can place themselves and others in various forms of imprisonment. Whether it is the emotional captivity – due to the absence of Anna - of Keller's wife, Grace (Maria Bello), or the mental arrest placed on Alex's childhood that has led him to where he is now. Prisoners suggests that whether you are in a box, a locked room, at your job, or at home with your family, none of us are really free and it is because of our pasts and the choices of others that we subconsciously continue to shackle ourselves.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Fearless and intelligent comedic brilliance.
16 April 2013
Anthony Jeselnik, the supposed "Prince of Darkness," is as boldly arrogant as he is devilishly intelligent. Utilizing one-liners - greatly influenced by comedic greats Mitch Hedberg & Steven Wright - Jeselnik's offensive and scathingly dark sense of humor isn't for everyone. Something that he is aware of, Jeselnik himself - in his 2013 special, "Caligula" - proclaimed, "I assume you all knew who you were coming to see tonight. But if you didn't, you sure as sh*t know now." Anddd that was after rape joke number two. Really, the show is not for everyone, but if you do have a widespread sense of humor - or a pretty basic level of intelligence - it's hard not to only appreciate the jokes, but hold back your laughter as well. Many will label it as profane, unnecessary, unfunny, malicious, and even tasteless, but this is a brilliant new program that showcases the brightest - or darkest depending how you wanna call it - future of comedy.
27 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Something beyond magical...
7 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
When I first heard that Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett's new film The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was destined to join the "sweepers" at the 2009 Oscars I knew that I had to check the film out to see if the rumors were true. Go back in time a little to when the film was first announced. David Fincher (Fight Club, Zodiac) was set to direct with a script from Eric Roth (Munich, The Insider) based off of an F. Scott Fitzgerald short story of the same title. The aspects of the crew were locked and had me somewhat interested. Then the cast list was announced with Brad Pitt (The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Twelve Monkeys) and Cate Blanchett (I'm Not There., Coffee and Cigarettes) headlining the list, to say the least, it had my attention. I rarely get hyped up for super-mainstream films anymore with all of the disappointments that have occurred in the past. Luckily enough I was given the chance to attend a press screening on December 4th for this film and left well, satisfied. Given the fact that I was underwhelmed by the trailers, being satisfied is certainly saying something.

Benjamin Button centers on the life of well, Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt). As he states throughout the film, he was born under unusual circumstances. Unusual does not seem fit to describe it. Absurd would be a more suiting for the strange predicament Button found himself in. Born at the same age of everyone else when they enter the world, he had one different trait that stood out like a great white shark in a fish bowl, he had the frail wrinkled skin of an old man. Not only that, all of his features were those of a ninety-year old man. How this happened, the film does not explain in scientific terms but rather labels it as a "miracle" which in retrospect, it certainly is. With the outside of an old man, but the mind of a new born, Button had quite the handicap to overcome as a child. He is raised by the loving Queenie (Taraji P. Henson) who runs a nursing home establishment. There he meets an assortment of characters that all effect his life in different way although one person seems to have more of an effect than the rest. A young girl named Daisy (Cate Blanchett) is the grand daughter of one of the elders residing in the home. There she befriends Benjamin and their epic tale of love begins.

Go into this film with an open minded because you are going to leave with an over flooded one as it is. The story carries so many twists and heart wrenching scenes that the viewer cannot help but become completely engrossed in the film. The main theme in the film is not death, forgiveness or love, but rather life. Life as whole. Every little detail, every experience we have is our life. What we witness is an almost complete documentation of Benjamin's life. One thing that the film did quite splendidly was when Benjamin stated in his narration that a certain person affected his life quite greatly. When the scenes with that person would initiate, the film's pacing would slow down and pay closer attention to his relationship with the person and the changes they caused in his life. A beautiful portrayal of the finer moments in life.

Even if you leave the film bitter there is one thing you cannot deny your love for. The technical aspects of the film. The make-up is the best I have ever seen in a film. The age progression of the actors is done incredibly well. Even the actors handled the age changing roles quite well. The costume design is also fantastic and will most likely take home the Oscar gold along with the make-up. Another notable technical aspect is Fincher's direction. He has never been nominated for the "coveted" Best Director before but he has a strong chance with this film. One of the film's sequences stands out above the rest as one of the greatest Fincher has ever directed. While I will not go into great detail about it, I will say that it involves a tug boat fending off a submarine and it is incredible. Alexandre Desplat who was the composer for the film creates a score that may not be one of the most memorable, certainly helps in creating the film's atmosphere, which is a poetic one. To fully describe the spell that the technical aspects cast over the film would be nothing short of mesmerizing.

While this may not be the best film of the year, it certainly is a film that will be remembered for quite some time. It's not "flawless" or a "masterpiece" but it is something grand, something magical. A film that can be experienced over and over again. One that does not undermine the intelligence of the viewer by repeating sloppy dramatic sequences that will only end up to the understandable conclusion of happiness. No, Benjamin Button is a film that understands the human mind and revels in it. Producing every bit of love, happiness, depression, confusion, hate, companionship that life provides us with this film is a tour-DE-force on most levels. Come Oscar time, this is the mainstream "masterpiece" of the year that is to be reckoned with. I can easily see it picking up nominations in most categories and winning them as well. Like I stated before, it is not the best film of the year, but is one that you should see to experience the wondrous life of Benjamin Button.
279 out of 463 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sleepwalking (2008)
3/10
Scottsdale, AZ Pre-Screening: 3/11/08
12 March 2008
Bill Maher's directorial debut 'Sleepwalking' follows a 12 year old Tara (AnnaSophia Robb) as tries to come to terms with her mother Jolene's (Charlize Theron) recent abandonment. In the process we're introduced to James (Nick Stahl) Tara's uncle and Jolene's brother. In the process Jolene and Tara wind up staying with James (a stunning Nick Stahl), Jolene's brother and Tara's uncle. Jolene one day disappears, she sends a letter saying that she has a plan and she'll be back in a month for Tara's birthday. Tara doesn't take this lightly; James however sees this as an opportunity to do some good, the pair then sets off on a departure from their everyday lives. Events unfold and Tara and James drive to James' father's farm expecting it to be a safe haven for themselves. Mr. Reedy (Dennis Hopper) is James' dad. When they finally arrive to the farm it turns out to be a hellish location set specifically for the all too predictable climax.

Sleepwalking has terrible camera work. It's one of the main problems with it. Its shot like a sappy Lifetime movie, close-up after close-up in the film's most pivotal scenes tires the audience. Another one of the problems is the quantity of unnecessary dialog and scenes that the film subjects the viewers to. Does the viewer really care that much about Jolene's ex boyfriend's nickname? No, they care about the plot and it moving on solidly.

The main highlight is Nick Stahl as James. He makes you feel for his character in ways I've never felt for a character before. He is simple minded and very caring, but those traits make it so that he never comes out on top. He led a very simple life as well before Tara came into his life for such a long period of time. How she transforms his character is interesting and Stahl displays it all. AnnaSophia Robb is also great as the young vixen who we watch. She shows again that she has a great potential for more serious and dramatic work in the years to come. In one of the film's best scenes she glides around skates, smoking cigarette acting reminiscent of Heather Graham's infamous Roller Girl. The boys all gawk as she smoothly moves around the pull, acting out of her age range and becoming more mature with each puff we understand that her character is perhaps doomed to end up like her mother. There is hope that she won't though hidden deep in James, just like her mother she just wants someone to show her that they love and care for her.

The film's two most prolific actors, legendary Dennis Hopper and the incomparable Charlize Theron disappoint a bit in their roles. Hopper's character is dry and bitter, Hopper plays him right but the overall deliver is still short of what it could be. Theron not only acted but also played producer to the film, however I think she should have stayed in the producer's chair for this one. Her character is a supporting one and she plays her right but you feel unsatisfied by her performance because there's not that much there.

Overall, Sleepwalking as a very bland film that could've much more if it had stayed more focused and less cliché at parts. Although, after the sleepwalk you'll remember it as a decent dream.

MY RATING: 6.0/10.0
33 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Ritalin and comedy mix well
20 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
'Charlie Bartlett' follows 17 year old rich boy loner, Charlie Bartlett (Anton Yechlin). He doesn't have any friends and gets kicked out of numerous private schools. He is addicted to trouble and challenging authority. The main point behind that is that his father was arrested for tax evasion, sending his mother into a manically depressed state. Charlie was then forced to take care for his mother thus having no one to look after himself, he was an adult before he even became a teenager. You later find out that he hates his father for this, stealing his childhood.

Charlie is kicked out of his last private school, the reason this time is for making fake ID's, he is then sent to a public school. Right when he arrives, you see the typical clicks in an all too fake montage, the pot heads, skaters, jocks and outcasts. He is greeted by no one, except a mentally unstable mongoloid named, Len Arbuckle. He becomes friends with Len and people start to notice that Charlie is not like them. You are then exposed to other characters, Principal Gardnes (Robert Downey Jr.), his daughter Susan (Kat Dennings) and the school bully Murphy Bivens (Tyler Hilton). Charlie runs with an unusual crowd, that is for sure.

Next in the story is a loner named Kip Crombwell (Mark Rendall) who asks Charlie if he can get him prescription drugs after a fiasco involving a school dance and Ritalin. Charlie of course agrees, all he really cares about is becoming popular and fitting in for once. The word then gets out about this little drug cartel Charlie has in his power. He and Murphy start to to get medication for all the kids at the school. Charlie runs a little psychiatrist office out of one of the boys' bathrooms. He asks the kids their problems, then recites them to his own psychiatrist thus getting the drugs.

The story is good, it lacks certain qualities that just don't seem believable, but then again this is a high school comedy, those traits aren't required. Anton Yechlin is great as Charlie Bartlett, it shows that this young kid has potential. I envisioned the film to be this dark teen comedy, but it turned into a quirky film about the high school body and drug abuse. The two surprisingly worked damn well together.

Hope Davis plays Charlie's neurotic mother. Her performance is the best in the film. She is so estranged from reality by her own medication that she seems like Charlie's daughter. She plays with the same quirkiness Kim Darby did as John Cusack's mother in the film 'Better Off Dead...'. The other adult in the film is Robert Downey Jr. He plays an alcoholic school principal. He also is a fan of boats. Look for some great scenes with him and Yechlin in the end of the movie.

All in all this a great representation of what high school is like for certain kids in their certain clicks, it tackles these topics with witty dialog and humor. For the most part it works, but sometimes in the few serious scenes, the shouldn't have flipped the humor switch back on so fast.

See this movie Friday, it's the first great movie of the year.

MY RATING: 8.0/10.0
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Brave One (2007)
6/10
an americanized update of Jordan's 'Mona Lisa'
23 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I'm quite a big fan of Neil Jordan, Breakfast on Pluto is easily in my top 30 of all time. The Brave One however, was quite the disappointment. I felt as if Neil Jordan was trying to make it an Americanized update of his classic film, Mona Lisa. The two films are very similar in most aspects as far as the stories go. The Brave One centers around radio host Erica Bain (Jodie Foster) as she enters a rampage of vengeance after her and her husband (Naveen Andrews) were brutally beaten in a New York City park tunnel. There's also a side story that involves Police Detective Mercer (Terrence Howard) as he tries to constantly take down a high-up business man.

Erica and Mercer form a kind of bond as the movie progresses. The feelings of lust even arise at points in the film as if they've tucked away the feelings of their ex's and tried to release them on another person. The writers did do a good job of playing the film out. They used a very standard idea and turned it into an average thriller that wasn't as farce as 2007's other vengeance thriller Death Sentence. I felt though that towards the end of the film when Erica finally finds the killers of her husband that all the emotions that were in the film just get piled into a giant mess are attempted to be expelled all over the crowd.

Jodie Foster does well in the film. She hits every emotion near perfect in some of the film's most dramatic scenes. Terrence Howard also racks in another good performance as well. There's a great scene between the two as they discuss crime and the 'mysterious killer', they share their views on the matter and what they say changes the resolution to the film greatly.

My final thoughts on this film are this, The Brave One is a film with good acting and directing and an average script. There's not much more to it I thought, no real suspense or frightening scenes such as Death Sentence had. Another complaint would be that the writers did ruin a some of the dramatic scenes by adding in some unfunny lines that were clearly there to break the sweat.

I give it a 6 out of a 10
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
30 days of moving
20 October 2007
30 Days of Night was horrible. One of the worst films over the year. I had high hopes for it, I mean Hard Candy's David Slade was directing, how could it have gone wrong? Simple. It was pointless and flawed in almost every aspect. If it wasn't for the good photography and camera angles then this film would've joined Captivity and Intervention as my only 1/10 films for 2007.

30 Days starts off by telling you facts about Barrow, Alaska, how it's the northernmost city in Alaska and how once each year it is plunged into 30 days of night. Slade introduces you to the character's and tries to show you how each of them flawed in a certain way to make you have feelings for them, although whenever someone died I felt no remorse what so ever, in fact, if I could have, I would've started to sing Another One Bites the Dust in the middle of the theater.

The thing I was most surprised by the though, was how shitty the script was. It was written by Steve Niles (The man behind the graphic novel), Brian Nelson (Hard Candy), and Stuart Beattie (Collateral). 30 Days had numerous scenes of corny lines and irrelevant dialog. The reason for the name of my review is because every time a new time card popped up Josh Hartnett would be the first to talk, and every damn time he did he'd say, "We need to move." By the end of the film they had moved at least 4 times I'm pretty sure.

Most people who liked the film were using the defense that it was a.) really gory or b.) super scary. I can now wrong them. My response to 'a' is yes, it did have lots of gore, some of it was cool, but really, does gore make a movie a 7/10? My conclusion to 'b' is great I think, plain and simple the film wasn't scary at all. There's no sense of isolation because most of the characters walk around an attic making tons of noise while the vampires are supposed to be walking along the roofs. If they're so superior wouldn't they have an increased sense of hearing? I will compliment the film on one other note however, they did do a good job of making vampires look undead for once. The teeth and the eyes helped increase the intensity of some of the scenes, still though that's not enough to save a film. Save your money for this one.

I give it a 4/10
19 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sleuth (2007)
7/10
an interesting thriller
17 October 2007
Kenneth Branagh is known for great Laurence Olivier remakes. His last remake was 1991's Hamlet. 16 years later Branagh is adapting one of Olivier's most famous films, Sleuth. He proves with his effective directing and camera techniques that he is still the greatest director for a remake. The film only has two actors, the legendary Michael Caine as he reverses his role this time around. In this film, the supposed Italian actor Milo Tindle is played by Jude Law. The film starts off with the camera cutting through security cameras throughout Wyke's (Caine) countryside estate. When Tindle arrives you find out that he is the lover to Wyke's wife. He simply asks for him to agree to a divorce, but Wyke has much more planned than that. The film then spends the rest of its time playing out elaborate mind games of deceit and trickery that will keep you guessing until the last second.

Usually, I think it'd be hard to watch just two actors for almost 90min. To pull it off, you'd have to have two incredibly strong actors to pull it off, and they got the perfect people for it. Michael Caine brings Olivier's role a fresher sense of darkness and questionable attributes. While Jude Law easily proves that he is one of his generations top actors. For playing Caine's former performance, Law is sufficient enough to keep the film going. During the second act of the film, Law will surprise you with a stunning performance.

Branagh's direction is somewhat courageous. He uses new camera techniques that haven't been seen before. Sleuth in some way is a dream for a cameraman. Branagh pulls off such interesting angles that it gives you different perspectives of what's going on in each scene. Whether your only line of sight is protruding through a set mini-blinds, it almost makes you feel like a peeping tom listening in on the mens conversation.

The script written by Harold Pinter is filled with eloquent dialog that will entrance you. The character's flip flop from good to bad constantly, so the dialog keeps you updated on who is winning the game. It also gives you a sense that there is a third character in the film. The house. It's incredibly high tech and is the reason for the same of the character's choices. Pinter also uses some of the designs in the house to help move the story along.

However though, towards the end of the second act it seems that the two characters start to get too caught up in their own games and the film does get a bit contrived. It lost my interest a little at the end as well. The film ends abruptly but leaves you hanging. After talking about everything, my conclusion is that Sleuth is definitely one of the greatest remakes of all time.

I give it an 8 out of 10
23 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lust, Caution (2007)
9/10
Lee's newest provocative film
13 October 2007
Ang Lee's newest Chinese film is both poignant and shocking. It is this years masterpiece. Lee combines espionage with erotic love scenes, it's not the common pair in films nowadays but it works out for the best. Lust spans over the time line of 4 years in World War II torn Shanghai and Hong Kong. Tai Wei stars (in a near perfect performance) as Wong Chia Chi a young actress who is convinced to join the resistance with friend Kuang (Wang Leehom) to help seduce and assassinate Chinese traitor Mr. Yee (an amazing Tony Leung in an Oscar worthy performance). The film is incredibly detailed as well, and keeps your attention at each detail as well, whether it's mahjongg games with Mrs. Yee (Joan Chen) or a mind-numbing love scene where Mr. Yee tortures Wong Chia Chi like most of the victims he interrogates.

The film became widely known when it received the dreaded NC-17 from the MPAA. In the screening I went to though, people seemed more shocked at the only violent scene in the film (that isn't mentioned in the films' rating) than the initially "controversial" sex scenes. The sex though was done tastefully, it was over the top, and it was heartfelt. Unlike most R-rated films nowadays.

While watching the film I was also drawn into the wonderful world that Lee created. It had the look and feel of a former utopia that was now a hellish war torn city. It almost gave the feeling that I was there with the people.

I can easily see this film getting an Adapted Screenplay nomination for the Oscars just like Lee's previous film the widely controversial 'Brokeback Mountain'. The film is based on Eileen Chang's short story with the same title. James Schamus and Hui-Ling Wang made a great script, the dialog moved the film forward gracefully.

Thanks to the MPAA though, a portion of the art-house audience won't be allowed to see this film. Take my word however, this film is worth getting a fake I.D. for.

I give it a 9 out of 10
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
the most beautiful film ever made
13 October 2007
I've been thinking of a good way to start my review, I've been pondering many opening sentences, but none of them are close enough to the point, so I've decided to just say that this film is perfect in all aspects. When the credits started to roll I didn't move at all, I sat staring at the screen just thinking about what I just watched. I was trying to understand if what I just saw was really that good, or if I was just thinking it was. The film runs at almost three hours, but never looses your attention for one second. It moves forward through dialog that is poetic, but increasingly haunting at times.

First off, the performances. Brad Pitt as Jesse Jame makes you feel that he is a vulnerable person, and then at the next second he'll make you completely change all your feelings for him. He doesn't talk much in the film, but is none the less flawless. Casey Affleck as Robert Ford is in his best performance ever, makes you hate him. His character is very shaky, very nervous at times, but always seems confident of what he's doing, whether it's right of wrong. He steals most of the scenes he's in. The biggest surprise however for me was Sam Rockwell as Charley Ford, Robert's brother and Jesse's right hand man. At the beginning of the film, you think that Charley is the stupid brother and that Robert is intelligent beyond any standard Charley could reach. At the end of the film though, the roles switch. You realize that Robert has been making all the dumb decisions, and Charley has been trying to save him by covering them up and usually taking all the crap for it. His last scene was intense and beautiful. One other performance to talk about is Paul Schneider as Dick Liddil, an outlaw womanizer. His performance is somewhat comedic, but in some scenes he can be the backbone for the drama. I can easily see Pitt getting a Best Actor nomination while Affleck pulls in the Supporting Actor for the win.

The musical score by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis is on par with Clint Mansell's classic Requiem for a Dream score, if not better. In the films most horrific scenes, the music turns them into something beautiful. You'll want to sit through the end credits just to hear it one more time. The music will draw you back to the film to see it again. The score also fits the tone for the most of the scenes.

Andrew Dominik's direction is perfect. He uses the camera in such a unique way that you never miss anything that happens. In one of the film's best scenes, he places the camera so that you can only see Pitt's silhouette become meshed into a train's smoke and then reappear seconds later as it pops out. Dominik also wrote the entire script by himself, which really shows how versatile he is. He originally wrote the film into a 3hr and 50min cut that the studio made him trash. I can't wait to see that cut.

The best thing in the film though, is Roger Deakins' cinematography. That is what you gives the feel for the film. The blurry landscapes, the wheat fields that Pitt gracefully moves through, and the greatest train robbery scene ever on film. It perfectly portrays the landscapes of the old 1800's and everything that took place there. The film is consistent with providing one memorable scene after the other. When the assassination finally happens, you'll be sitting in your chair gawking at the screen in amazement of how sudden it happens.

I am very proud to say that this is now my favorite film of all time, and my definite choice for Best Picture of the year. It brings new flavor to the art-house scene and never lets you down. I recommend this film to everyone. It truly is a beautiful film.

I give it a 10 out of 10
374 out of 542 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed