Reviews

Way back in 1984 German director Edgar Reitz directed a TV miniseries called Heimat: A Chronicle of Germany. (Heimat meaning Homeland.) This 15 hour long miniseries became the first part of his Heimat films. In these films he would try and tell Germany's history through characters in the small fictional town of Schabbach. He would later add two more TV miniseries and two films to his massive series. The most recent edition to the Heimat story being Home from Home: Chronicle of a Vision.

For the newest edition to the series Edgar Reitz decided to take the story all the way back to the beginning, specifically the town of Schabbach in the mid 19th Century. Which is the farthest back in time any Heimat film has taken place. The film mainly focuses on the story of Jakob, (played by Jan Dieter Schneider in his first thematic performance, and it's a great debut.) a young member of Schabbach who has dreams of leaving his small poor town and emigrate to Brazil. But unfortunately for him he keeps finding himself unexpectedly detained. And as the years slowly go by he becomes less and less hopeful of ever leaving Schabbach.

I should mention this before continuing the review, you don't need to see all of the other Heimat film before you see this one, it's a prequel and for the most part not connected to the other films at all. So don't let the Heimat series massive length deter you from watching Home from Home Even though Home from Home is much shorter than most of the other installments to the Heimat series, it is still a very long film. Home from Home clocks in at nearly four hours long but it doesn't feel nearly that long. The film is slow paced, but it never feels boring because it's able to enchant the audience with its likable characters and simple and relatable themes. We follow Jakob and his family through all there different toils and troubles that they are faced with, whether it be the difficulties of planting and harvesting seasons, oppression from the rich Barron, or finding new love. By the end of the film we are incredibly close to these characters and feel a deep personal connection with them, nearly every single character has there own private scene, so the audience can't help but feel part of the small town of Schabbach There are also several different scenes or objected that reused or referenced throughout the film, giving the film a nice since of cohesion.

The cinematography, while being amazing for most of the film, does have some weaker parts. Home from Home is mostly a black and white film, but there are a few objects throughout the film that are in color. (Like the girl in the red dress from Schindler's List.) And sometimes this really works, and other times it doesn't. Sometimes it just looks really out of place and really just come across as an eyesore, the coloring is really sloppy and does not fit with the rest of the film. Not to mention that sometimes it's completely unnecessary, so you end up wondering why it was still in the final cut of the film. But the soundtrack is luckily consistently good throughout the film, and fits Home from Home perfectly.

While you're watching Home from Home you don't realize the effect it's having on you. But when it's over, you'll find it's difficult to get Home from Home out of you're head. You'll find yourself mulling over the characters and events constantly, and you'll find that you miss the characters and will want to return to the film just to relive the moments. And as I aid before you don't need to see the other Heimat films before you see this one, so do yourself a favor and check it out

8.3

There was a lot of hype for Norte: The End of History before it was released, it went from film festival to film festival winning tons of awards and be praised as one of the greatest films of the past few years. And when it was finally released to more "general audiences," they were split on it. And in Norte's defense, there are few films that could live up to that much hype. Norte: The End of History follows two different protagonists one of them being Fabian (played by Sid Lucerio) a brilliant Pilipino law student who is disgusted by the world, and believes himself to be sort of an übermensch. And the other being Joaquin (played by Archie Alemania) a poor lower class worker, who is just trying to provide for his family. The only thing that links these two characters together is that they both use the same money-lender. One day Fabian decides that he is done with his petty life of having pretentious arguments with his snobbish friends and decides to cut of all relationships with them, and he also decides to kill his money-lender, as both an act to show his dominance and to clear his debt. The money-lender's death is then pinned on Joaquin, who is sentenced to prison with no hope of ever leaving.

Lav Diaz, the director of Norte, was very clearly inspired by Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment when he made Norte. Except Lav Diaz takes a much darker and more nihilistic approach to the story. Lav Diaz's films are infamous for their massive length and slow pace. Norte tells a story, that would be told in 2 hours if handled by a more "normal" director, in over 4 hours. So if you're someone who has trouble sitting through long films, Norte might not be for you. And I won't lie even as someone who is familiar with longer films and slower films, there were still parts in Norte that felt like they were going on for too long, and I think it would be better if Lav Diaz did cut back on the films length or quicken its pace. There are some scenes that I think are paced perfectly, like the murder scene and the climax, but there's a lot of stuff in the middle that just feels very unimportant and is really just bloating the run-time.

Even though there is very little in terms of graphic content shown on screen in Norte, it still manages to be one of the most shocking and dark films to come out of the past few years, all on the merit of the film's characters and their twisted view on morality. As you're watching the film you can't help but wonder, what was going Diaz's mind when he made it. All of the actors do excellent jobs in there roles especially Sid Lucerio, who unfortunately hasn't been in anything else of note, yet. The cinematography is also really good. Larry Manda, the cinematographer does a great job of portraying the slums of the Philippines as a desolate hellish landscape of sin and torment. And the last 45 minutes of Norte are executed perfectly. If you're someone who doesn't mind long run-times and slow pacing, then I would highly recommend Norte: The End of History to you.

7.6/10

Shane Black, the writer/director of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, returns with another neo-noir, buddy cop comedy called The Nice Guys. The Nice Guys takes place in 1977 Los Angeles, and after a bizarre opening scene that will only fully make sense until the end of the film, the film introduces us to one of the main protagonists, Jackson Healy. (played by Russell Crowe) Who is just low-level muscle for hire, who one day is hired by a shy paranoid girl called Amelia, (played by Margaret Qualley) to beat up a bumbling private investigator, Holland March (played by Ryan Gosling) that is on her tail. Later on Healy is attacked by two thugs that demand to know Amelia's whereabouts, which Healy does not know. After Healy escapes the thugs he goes and tries to find Holland March in order that they can team up and find Amelia and figure out what's going on.

The Nice Guys is a mixture of a neo-noir mystery and a buddy cop comedy, but the film is works much better as a comedy then as a mystery, a lot of the jokes are really good with great deliveries on the punch-lines and some solid physical humor to boot. But even though the jokes on a hole are pretty good some of them do fall flat, and the film doesn't do a very good job of keeping the comedy going in a continuous flow, it sort of just comes in these short bursts. But the comedy on a hole as I said earlier is really good, so there's no real reason to get nitpick it, especially when there are so many big problems I have with the film mainly the plot. The plot itself is pretty generic, if you've seen any neo-noir film you've basically seem The Nice Guys, but not only is it generic, it's lazy. The majority of the time the way the plot is furthered is by the characters accidentally stumbling across the thing they needed, or some random character coming over and telling the protagonists the information they needed to know, very little goes on in the way of actual detective work, which makes for a very obnoxious and dull movie.

But the biggest problem I have with the Nice Guys is that it's not immersive. While I was watching the film I never felt like I was actually in 70s. Compare this to Paul Thomas Anderson's Inherent Vice, (which is a film set in a similar time period) when you're watching Inherent Vice you feel like you're in the actual era its placing you in. All of the characters mannerisms and the smallest things in the background help contribute to this feeling, and it makes the film so much better and enjoyable. I never got that from The Nice Guys. Which was a serious let done, the lack of immersion makes the film feel tedious and just fake. Overall I'm split on The Nice Guys, on one hand there are some funny jokes and solid performances and on the other the plot is unoriginal and weak, and the film is not immersive. I guess it's worth looking into if it looks like something you'd be into, but you wouldn't really be missing anything if you didn't see The Nice Guys.

The Halloween horror franchise is one of the most famous horror franchises ever. It started way back in 1978 with the release of John Carpenter's horror masterpiece Halloween, a film that forever changed the horror genre. Halloween did so well with audiences that it led to countless sequels, most of which are of "questionable" quality. But just when everyone though the franchise was finally dead, Rob Zombie came along with plans to remake the original classic. And that remake was not well received, it wasn't considered terrible, but it was nowhere near as good as the boundary pushing original. But even with the mixed reaction to the original Rob Zombie decided to continue with the series and make a sequel to the first remake. And while this remake was completely panned upon its original release, it has now found a small cult following.

The majority of Halloween 2 takes place two years after the incidents of the first film. Laurie, who is Michael Myers little sister, whom he had been trying to kill in the previous film, is still living in Haddonfield and her foster family are trying to conceal her identity as Michael's sister. And meanwhile Samuel Harris has gone on to make a fortune of the the tragedy of the first film by selling books about Michael Myers. As Halloween approaches Laurie, who goes struggles to cope, as she is viciously reminded of the horrible events that happened to years earlier. And to make matters worse Myers has come back to Haddonfield to try and finish what he started two years ago.

Halloween 2 is a film that had some really good ideas, the best of which being to start trying to experiment with surrealist horror in the film. Also the film occasionally boasts some pretty impressive visuals, which is nice. But undeniably the best part about Halloween 2 is the opening part in the hospital. While most of the film takes place two years after the events of Rob Zombie's first film the first 20 or so minutes take place immediately after the first film. And these 20 or so minutes are amazing, first of all they are unrelentingly brutal and disturbing. Even little things like the dialogue between police officers in this opening scene is down right disgusting and volatile. The opening also has a great oppressive atmosphere, that feels liked being covered in a heavy blanket of dread and terror. This Great atmosphere will unfortunately not come back for the rest of the film.

After the opening scene the film slowly decreases in quality, and quickly devolves into a complete mess. One of the biggest problems with Halloween 2, is that it didn't go all the way with the surrealism and the brutality of the first scene. It just will occasionally experiment with it a little bit and then leave it alone for a while, which was really disappointing. Another huge problem with Halloween 2, is that it kept cutting away from the protagonist. This breaks the movies flow, and prevents it from creating any atmosphere or building any tension. The film would have been so much better if it just focused on Laurie and created a little private surrealist hell for her where she was tormented by figments from her past. Another thing that would have made Halloween 2 better, is if it wasn't a "Halloween" film. The connection to the franchise is just holding it back. If the film was not connected to the tired old story it could have experimented much more. At the end of the day Halloween 2 isn't terrible, but most of the film is horribly un- scary, dull, and forgettable, and I don't think I can recommend it to most people. But that opening scene is pretty good.

4.8

The modern film world is one filled with excess, and I'm not just talking about manufactured Hollywood block-busters. No there is even a large amount of excess in films that are more "artistic" if you will. And I want to be clear, that is not necessarily a bad thing, several films recent films have done wonders with just the concept of excess beyond reason, like The Wolf of Wall Street for example. But I do feel like something has been lost in the film world, a certain subtly that filled the films of Bergman and Ozu. A restraint that served to exemplify the characters and their struggles. Luckily there are some contemporary directors that are trying to continue this subtlety, and one of those directors is Ming-Liang Tsai.

Stray Dogs is the most recent film by Ming-Liang Tsai, and well Stray Dogs doesn't have a plot, at least not the conventional sense. The film instead follows the lives of a few different characters, and tries to capture them as they are. The film brings the audience close to these characters and let's the audience understand them for what they are. To say that Stray Dogs takes its time is an understatement, every single scene in the film is slow and is stretched to the very limit of filmmaking. And believe me when I say that the scenes are at their limits. There are two scenes in the film that go on for so long that it exceeded not only anything else I had seen in any film, but they exceeded anything I thought possible. There is something very hypnotic about these scenes, Ming-Liang Tsai forces the audience to just stare at these characters for minutes on end as we soak in their facial expressions and slowly become one with them. It is something that is truly gorgeous and needs to be seen to be understood.

If the actors in Stray Dogs were bad or even just average the film would be completely unwatchable, but luckily for us they are all fantastic. Especially Kang-sheng Lee, who plays the father of a small homeless family. (Kang-sheng Lee worked with Ming Liang-Tsai on several of his films.) He gives one of the most enduring and real performances I have ever seen. Another thing that's needs to be great for the film to work is the cinematography, which is also fantastic. The film is shot in a very matter-of-fact way, things are just shown as they are. The camera only a moves a handful amount of times in a film that's over two hours long. And the colors and lighting are just wonderful. Overall Stray Dogs is one of the most refreshing films I've seen in a long time, and if you think you can handle a really, really slow paced film, with a very unconventional narrative structure. I would highly recommend Stray Dogs.

8.6

If Isao Takahata made more films he would most likely be my favorite director of all time. He was a co-founder of Studio Ghibli, a widely acclaimed Japanese animation studio, and also directed a few films for them. He is without a doubt my favorite animation director of all time, (sorry Don Hertzfeldt and Hayao Miyazaki, your both still great.) so when I found out that he was going to release a new film, The Tale of the Princess Kaguya, the first one in nearly fifteen years, I could not be happier. And when I found out that it was going to be his last one, and supposedly the last one by studio Ghibli, (which turned out to be false with the the release of When Marnie Was There, a film that everyone needs to check out.) I could not be sadder. But when I, at long last, saw The Tale of the Princess Kaguya I was more than satisfied with it.

The Tale of the Princess Kaguya is based of a 10th century Japanese myth called the tale of the bamboo cutter. Which is actually the oldest known Japanese story, there's something very marvelous in making your last film an adaptation of your cultures oldest story. In the story a humble childless bamboo cutter, (Voiced in the American dub of the film by James Caan.) who lives out in the mountains, and spends his days cutting down the bamboo trees, and spending time with his wife. One day the bamboo cutter cuts down a bamboo tree and a mysterious light shines from inside the tree and the bamboo cutter finds a strange small girl in the tree. (Voiced by Chloe Grace Moretz.) The bamboo cutter then takes the girl home to his wife and they decide to raise it as their own.

Supposedly The Tale of the Princess Kaguya was in production for eight years, and it shows. Not only is it the longest film Ghibli has ever produced, but every single frame in the film is absolutely awe-inspiring. I don't want to oversell the animation, but i think I can safely say that this might in fact be the best animation I've seen in any film ever up to this point. Don't get me wrong Spirited Away was immensely creative and detailed, and things like Akira and Fantasia were game changing, but there is a subtle and restrained beauty in The Tale of the Princess Kaguya, that I have never seen in any other film ever. Like all of the best animated films out there, The Tale of the Princess Kaguya creates its own world. And it's world is one of beautiful countrysides, crowded streets, empty lonely palaces, and most importantly whimsical magic. The animations subtle beauty does explode in some deeply emotional scenes, like in the flawlessly handled party scene, and the one immediately following it.

The film's perfect animation is greatly enhanced by its soundtrack. The score for The Tale of the Princess Kaguya was composed by Joe Hisaishi, who composed most of the Ghibli's films, but even with his impressive back catalog The Tale of the Princess Kaguya is some of his best work. The song "flying" from the soundtrack is enough to bring me to tears, and when you combine the song with the actual scene in the film, man there really is nothing else like it. And the lyrics to the Nursery Rhyme are simply touching. Between the animation and the soundtrack I would say that the best way to describe The Tale of the Princess Kaguya is that the film just oozes beauty.

The voice-acting is, well, on par with the soundtrack, animation and basically everything else in the film. Meaning it's beyond superb. Every single voice actor is at the top of their game. I should mention that I am talking about the English dub, the original Japanese dialogue is also great but I'm more familiar with the English dub, but in all honesty you can watch either and get the same effect. Typically when a film from a non-English speaking country gets released in an English speaking country, I would recommend watching the original dialogue, and to avoid any and all dubs, but that's not the case with Studio Ghibli. Disney owns the right to release Studio Ghibli films in America. So since they're Disney, when they release a Studio Ghibli film they get top quality actors to do the voices. And boy did they do a great job with The Tale of the Princess Kaguya. They're aren't many the big stars in The Tale of the Princess Kaguya, the biggest being Chloe Grace Moretz. But every single actor perfectly embodies they're character in a way that I've rarely seen done in animated film before this.

The Tale of the Princess Kaguya was received well by critics, and was nominated for best animated feature by the academy awards in 2014, unfortunately it lost to Big Hero Six and while that's a decent film, the idea that Big Hero Six is anywhere near as good as The Tale of the Princess Kaguya is laughably and insultingly incorrect. The Tale of the Princess is one of the greatest animated films of all time, it's also one of the greatest films of the 2010s, if not they greatest for both of those categories. I really don't think I can recommend this film enough, everyone on this planet needs to see this film. It will never be possible for me, or anyone for that matter, to fully express this films beauty and quality in words, you just have to experience it for yourself. And please experience it as soon as possible.

10/10

The Magician came out at the high point of the famous and fantastic Swedish director, Ingmar Bergman's career, it came out right after Wild Strawberries and The Seventh Seal and right before The Virgin Spring and his famous "Spider-God" or "God's silence" trilogy. But the magician has not been remembered in the same light as those films, in fact it's been mostly forgotten. The Magician follows Volger's Magnetic Health Theater a traveling performance troupe that is run by Albert Emmanuel Volger. (Played by Max Von Sydow.) Many authority figures are skeptical on whether they should be allowed to perform in public. So they are asked to come perform for Dr. Vergerus (played by Gunnar Björnstrand) and Police Superintendent Starbeck (played by Toivo Pawlo) at the house of the rich merchant Mr. Egerman. So that they can see if the performance is fit for public consumption.

After watching the Magician I can see what it is less popular than The Seventh Seal and Wild Strawberries, it lacks the dark atmosphere and theological complexity of The Seventh Seal, and soft subtle human emotion and melancholy of Wild Strawberries. But even though The Magician lacks the depth of some of his other films, Ingmar Bergman's skill and style are still present. The Magician is mostly restrained to the large estate of Mr. Egerman, which is composed of some of the best sets I've seen in an Ingmar Bergman film, this gives the film a wonderful isolated feel. The film's isolated feel is only magnified when coupled with the film's sense of mystery, which makes for one very entertaining film.

I really shouldn't even have to say this, considering it's an Ingmar Bergman film, but the acting is great. A lot of Bergman favorites like Max von Sydow, Gunnar Björnstrand, Ingrid Thulin, and Bibi Anderson all star in the Magician, and they're all as good as ever. Max Von Sydow deserves special praise, his character doesn't even speak until an hour through the film, but everything we need to know about him is told through his pose and facial expressions. His character is one that is filled with a deep sadness, he has clearly lived a difficult life but it know it is finally his chance to prove himself to real professionals. The films cinematography is on par with most Bergman films of the time. The film was shot by Gunnar Fischer, who has done wonders on some of Bergman's past films like The Seventh Seal and Smiles of a Summer Night and does wonders here. He captures the dark halls of Mr. Egermans estate perfectly.

Even though I can see why The Magician is not considered as good as some of Ingmar Bergman's other films, it is still criminally under seen. The film is one of they most "comfy," Ingmar Bergman films out there. And sure it may not be as complex or beautiful as some of his other films it is still classic Bergman. And if you're an Ingmar Bergman fan you definitely don't want to pass this film up, but if you're not familiar with Bergman I would suggest checking out some of his more famous films before watching this one.

7.9/10

Simon Killer is the new Psychological thriller by Antonio Campos, the film follows Simon (played by Bradley Corbet) as he travels in Paris trying to forget about his girlfriend, whom he had just broken up wit, after staying together. One night as he wonders about he comes to a strip club, where he meets the stripper/prostitute Noura. (Played by Mati Diop.) Simon quickly falls in love with Noura and finds it difficult to spend time away from her and becomes jealous of the fact that she has to sleep with other men for her job. So to try and fix the situation he proposes that she should black mail one of the married men that come for her services. She reluctantly accepts, and they start their working on their trap, needless to say things do not go according to plan.

Simon Killer is a very slow film, and sometimes it's pace works and other times it doesn't. Antonio Campos tries to lull you in with a slow hypnotic pace, working mainly through repetition and dream-like passage of time. The film does a good job of bringing you in with its pace, but unfortunately starts to lose its audience around the half way point. The film becomes very tedious with its repetition and we're not quite sure who we're supposed to be rooting for. The characters motivations become muddled and you're not sure what's going on or why. This works for some films, like Caché or The Virgin Suicides, but films like the ones previously mentioned always give the audience enough to peak there interest and make them want to figure out the rest of the film. Simon Killer doesn't ever do this, so most of the film ends up being pretty forgettable.

But I should give credit where credit is due. First of all Bradley Corbet does a great job as the introverted Simon. He is able to create this character that just doesn't feel right, from the second we see him we can tell that something is just wrong. Antonio Campos also has some excellent camera work, for most of the scenes the camera is set almost completely still, and if there is movement it's typically a slow zoom in/out, or a slow pan to the left or right. The effect is something unnerving, and the cinematography in general is very similar to the cinematography in Francis Ford Coppola's The Conversation. i.e. creates a sense of paranoia. Overall I'd say Simon Killer had some good ideas, they just need to be more developed. If you're into slow dark psychological films I'd say it's worth checking out.

5.5/10

Crumb is documentary about the famous and controversial cartoonist Robert Crumb. The film was directed by Terry Zwigoff. Crumb is the second film directed by Zwigoff, the first being a documentary about Howard Louie Blue released in 1985. Zwigoff knew Robert Crumb before making the film, and had even played in Crumb's string band, but even with his close connections to Crumb it took a lot of convincing to let Zwigoff make the film. And the film itself was also very difficult to make, it took nine years to make on a a budget of roughly $200 per month. Zwigoff also said that he "slept with a loaded gun the pillow next to me trying to get up the nerve to kill myself." But Zwigoff's hard work paid of, because Crumb is a masterpiece.

Robert Crumb is a cartoonist most known for his famous "keep on trucking" drawing, and his Fritz the Cat cartoon. Crumb is the ideal anti-celebrity. He turned down the offer to trademark and market the "keep on trucking" drawing several times, he also distanced himself with the Fritz the Cat animated film, and also refused to join any major magazines or comics. Mostly staying in small independent comics like Zap! For his life. And Crumb's counter culture attitude was perfectly represented in his art. His comics were typically crude, vulgar, depraved, and shocking. The film follows the career of Robert Crumb, how he started as a no-name cartoonist, who eventually got his disgusting comics hung in art galleries across the country. But the film doesn't just show us the history of Crumb's art. Zwigoff and Crumb go out and interview Crumb's family and we learn why Crumb is the way he is, delving deep into his psyche.

To say that the art of Robert Crumb is "shocking" is a massive understatement. No matter how used to taboo's you think you are, it's hard not to feel repulsed by Crumb's art. Believe me I am not exaggerating when I say that much of it is sexist, racist, and overall just down right inhumane, and that may be enough to turn some people off. Several people that interviewed throughout the film are completely disgusted by Crumb's comics, and other find a strange sense of empowerment through his work. While most directors handling a documentary would just show a history of Crumb and his work, Zwigoff takes it to the next level by analyzing that art. In the very first seen of the film Zwigoff asks Crumb what the point of his work is, and Crumb says he doesn't really know what the point is, he just sort of figures it out as he goes along.

So the film takes it upon itself to discover the purpose in Crumb's art, and it does this be interviewing Crumb's family, and this is where the film reaches its brilliance. The sections where they interview Robert Crumb's brothers, Charlie and Max, are some of the most depressing scenes in any film ever. We learn about how they mistreated and bullied each other and how their alcoholic father abused them, how Robert was rejected by the girls in his school, and how Charlie sexual fantasies never devolved past Bobby Driscoll from treasure island. Yes there is something truly saddening about these scenes, and the locations in which they're shot only add to this feeling. The crappy apartments that haven't been cleaned in weeks, with endless books covering the floors and walls, and the windows are covered with torn curtains. Robert and his brother Max, who became a painter, where able to escape this terrible fate through their art. But unfortunately Charlie was not able, and his horrible childhood ending up ruining his whole life.

Crumb is not like most documentaries about artists, it doesn't just provide a history of Crumb's life and work, but instead the film seeks to really get at the heart of Crumb, what his art is, and why it is the way it is. Crumb did alright at the box office, but was a critical darling. But even with nearly every single review giving it a perfect rating, it still wasn't nominated for best documentary by the academy awards. (Ironically Hoop Dreams, another fantastic documentary that came out that same year wasn't nominated either.) But even with its snub, it still has gone down in history as one of the greatest documentaries ever, and was added to Roger Ebert's Great Movies in 2005. Crumb truly is not only one of the greatest documentaries ever, but one of the best films ever.

The Iranian director Asghar Farhadi exploded onto the international film scene with the release of his 2011 film A Separation, the film received endless critical praise, topping countless critics list for the best of the year, and A Separation became the first Iranian film to ever win the Academy Award for best foreign language film, and was even nominated for best original screen play. So naturally there was a lot of hype for Farhadi's next film. People were dying to know what his next film was going to be, and if he could top A Separation. The answer to the first of these two questions is The Past, and the answer to the second is no, Farhadi was not able to top A Separation. At least not yet.

The Past begins with Ahmad (played by Ali Mosaffa) returning to Paris to finalize the divorce with his wife Marie. (played by Berenice Bejo) Because Marie would like to move on and marry the owner of laundromat, Samir. (played by Tahar Rahim) Whose former wife tried to kill herself, but now lies in a comma at a hospital. Samir and his young son, Fouad (played by Elyes Aguis) have already moved in with Marie and her two children from a previous marriage, the elder of the two being Lucie (played by Pauline Burlet) a teenager who doesn't get along with her mother or Samir, and instead prefers her step father Ahmad. The film follows all these characters as they try to work out all of there differences and resolve all of the things they did to each other in the past. And as the film goes on we discover that all of the characters have more than a few skeletons in their closets.

Asghar Farhadi has a very distinct and unique style, he has a strong focus on realism and showing things as they are. He stripes the film down to their basics, removing any fancy/stylized cinematography, like A Separation The Past does not have a score or soundtrack. His style is very similar to that of The Dardenne brothers or Abbas Kiarostami. But Farhadi instead has much more of a focus on the complexities of the human emotions that well can all feel and relate to. There are no heroes or villains in his films, instead there are just people trying to do their best. Farhadi relies a lot on his actors, they have to have dramatic range and be able to show several different emotions at once in order for the point of his film to come across. And while every single actor in A Separation was spot on, there are some weaker performances in The Past.

But the acting is really only a tiny issue most of the actors are great there are just a few wishy-washy ones. The biggest problem I have with The Past is that the plot is so complex and confusing that it does gets hard to tell who's mad at who, and why they're mad. Which is something that we need to know if the film is going to have an impact on the audience. If you pay close attention you will easily be able to track with the plot just fine, but there are so many different characters and they all have intricate relationships with each other, that it becomes difficult to get emotionally invested when you are still trying to figure who did what to who and why. I want to be clear The Past isn't a bad film because it has a confusing plot, it's just a weaker film because it relies on you getting emotionally involved in the film, and it's confusing plot makes it difficult to get involved. Several great films have much more confusing plots, but those films don't put a lot of emphasis on emotional connection, at least not in the same simple way in which Farhadi does.

In the end I would say that the Past is not as good of a film as A Separation. It's not as emotional or as groundbreaking as that film, and a lot of The Past ends up feeling like A Separation, which obviously means that it's going to be good, but just not as good as A Separation. But it is still worth seeing especially if you liked A Separation, there good performances and several different scenes that have the simple beauty of A Separation.

6.8/10

Venus in Fur is the new film from famed French director Roman Polanski. The film tells the story of Thomas, (played by Mathieu Almalric) a playwright who has decided to try directing because as he says, "other directors always get it wrong." He choose to adapt the novel Venus in Fur, written by Leopold Von Sacher-Masoch, (the founder of machoism) but is struggling with finding an actress to play Vanda, the lead female character. Just as he's about to leave, one final actress, whose name happens to be Vanda, (played by Emmanuelle Seigner) shows up to audition for the part. Very quickly Thomas decides that Vanda is perfect for the role, and they start to go through the play acting scenes out, discussing the play, discovering things about each other and the lines between reality and fiction begin to blur.

Venus in Fur is adapted from a play, which makes it Polanski's second play-to-film adaptation in a row. (The previous being Carnage.) If you told me I was going to be watching a Polanski film about machoism, this is not what I'd expect. I mean this is the guy who brought us Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby. But instead of being a dark twisted psychological horror film, Venus in Fur is instead a subtle subdued film that studies the relationship between author and subject matter, and how art imitates life and life imitates art. A concept that was, unfortunately for Venus in Fur, explored much better in Alejandro González Iñárritu's Birdman a film released only a year after Venus in Fur. That's not stay that Venus in Fur does a bad job, the film raises several interesting questions about how much of themselves authors put in their work, and how the audience interprets that work.

If you somehow knew that the two leads in Venus in Fur also play the two leads in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly just by reading their names and recognizing that they were both in it, then good job because that is some serious name recognition skill. Both actors, like in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, do great work in Venus in Fur. The characters conflict with each other perfectly, I don't mean that they completely disagree on everything, I mean that they disagree on a certain number of things and they agree on a certain number of things for their characters to have great chemistry. The entire film relies on these two characters being good and the actors being good, and luckily both of these things are true. Venus in Fur is at heart a teleplay and while it's no 12 Angry Men, it's still pretty good. Venus in Fur can be a little dull and tedious at parts, but never for to long, and the ending is far from satisfying. Besides these two things, I don't really have any other issues with the film.

Venus in Fur is not the best Polanski film, and if you haven't ever seen another Polanski film before in your life I would recommend checking out Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby, or Chinatown before watching Venus in Fur. I'd like to end by saying that the film feels like one that you would put on a rainy Sunday afternoon, a very calm slow film that lets you soak in the atmosphere and style while never forcing any dark heavy stuff at you, Very comfy.

6.8/10

Downfall tells the story of the last days of Hitler (played in the film by Bruno Ganz) in the bunker as Berlin was being attacked by the Russians. Which is an interesting idea for a film, and like most interesting ideas it's also a touchy one. The film follows Hitler and the remaining members of the Third Reich as they try to hold back the Germans, destroy all records of what they were doing, and come to terms with the fact that the Nazi party is over. At the beginning of the film Hitler seems sure that they can still win this, but as time goes on he becomes less and less sure, as the battle moves closer his home. Which makes for a great character study.

Downfall, as I said earlier, is an interesting idea for a film. It's nice to see that a film has has the courage to try and tackle such a difficult subject. The film doesn't try to portray the Nazi's as heroes or villains it just try's to show them as people. Which some people might take issue with, but then again if film is going to grow as an art form then we need to push boundaries and make some people uncomfortable in the process. But even though Downfall has a great premise, it struggles with bringing its vision to the screen.

Before we get into the issues I'd like to begin with what the film gets right, and if there's one thing Oliver Hirschbiegel, the director of Downfall, gets right, it's casting Bruno Ganz to play Adolf Hitler. He steals every single scene he's in, and this might be a backhanded compliment to Bruno Ganz, but it feels like he was born to play Hitler. I mean his performance in Wings of Desire was great, but this is the one that they'll remember him for, and it's a shame he wasn't nominated for best lead actor. Another thing that Downfall does really well, is that it is able to get you to sympathize with Nazis. At one part in the film I felt legitimate sorrow for some of the characters and then I realized, I was sad because bad things were happening to Nazis. Something I never though I would ever feel in my whole life, and since Downfall made me feel that, I would say it deserves to be commended.

But even though Downfall was able to get you to sympathize with Nazis, it still messed some other things up. The biggest problem with Downfall is that it isn't focused. The films main plot is on Hitler in the bunker, all the things he's dealing with, and how he faces his inevitable destruction. And with that center plot, the film tries to build all these different stories and characters that are tied to what's going on with Hitler in the Bunker, and a lot of these are unnecessary and distracting. Another problem I have with all the side characters is a good chunk of the supporting cast is pretty weak. None are terrible but I mean they were unnecessary some were annoying, and I just really didn't care about a whole lot of them. This might seem strange but at some parts Downfall feels like it's trying to imitate Schindler's List. The way in which the horrors of the war are portrayed in Downfall are very similar to way in which the horrors of the holocaust were portrayed in Schindler's List. Maybe it's just me that thinks this, but the way they would have horribly violent actions shot like they were just part of everyday life, felt identical to some parts of Schindler's List. Downfall also has a serious problem with using CGI in some of their battle scenes, it only happens a few times but when it does it ruins the whole scene.

Downfall was well received by audiences and critics alike, and was even nominated for best foreign language film by The Academy Awards. And I had have to say that I recommend Downfall, it's worth seeing just based of the concept of the film alone, even if the execution is lackluster.

6.6/10

The Strange Color of Your Body's Tears is a tribute to Italian Giallo slasher films of the 60s and 70s. The film begins with a man returning to his apartment after he has been away on business for two weeks, only to find that his wife is missing. The man then tries to find his wife. He searches through her stuff calls, the police, and visits a mysterious lady up on the seventh floor of his building. But things take a turn for the worse when he discovers something that has mysteriously appeared in his apartment. The film then becomes a disjointed serious of dream sequences and flashbacks that become increasingly hard to follow.

The Strange Color of Your Body's Tears is second film by the Italian horror duo, Hélène Cattet and Bruno Frozani. And let me just say that these two know what they're doing, the film is very well crafted, the blocking and camera work in this is some of the freshest I've seen in any film from the past few years. The cinematography (shot by Manuel Dacosse) is fantastic. The film is vibrantly colorful, has flawless lighting, and does a great job of getting you up close and personal with the characters in the film. The sound design is also insanely good. There's little dialogue in the film, (we get most of the information about the characters through what we see.) but the void the absence of dialogue has made is filled with some of the most detailed and complex sound design I've heard in a horror film.

But where The Strange Color of Your Body's Tears succeeds in style, it fails in story. With all of its jumping around, cryptic storytelling, and dream sequences it becomes nearly impossible to follow, (at least towards the end.) and thus the film fails to engage its audience. The story in itself wasn't that great to start with, and they never really add anything onto it, if anything they take away from where the story started by making it so confusing and to make it worse they don't do much to try and make you follow their film. Their are aspects of the story that are really good, (like the back story of the lady on the seventh floor.) but on a whole the story is alright at best, and a muddled mess at worst.

While not bad a bad film, The Strange Color of Your Bodies Tears could have been much better than it actually was. Hélène Cattet and Bruno Frozani both definitely have talent, they just need to work on focusing in on a single theme or story, and making it coherent. If they are able to do these two things the film they make will almost definitely be a masterpiece. But for now I'm satisfied with The Strange Color of Your Bodies Tears.

5.9

The Road seems to be trying to win the "least fun movie of all-time award." It's definitely up there with films like The Turin Horse, Bad Lieutenant, and Irréversible. And you know what, there's nothing wrong with that. Several of the films, (like the ones previously mentioned and several others.) that try to be depressing and miserable end up being really great. However many films that try to do the same thing, end up being dull and just not worth watching. But Where does The Road lie? Well I'm happy to say that it's for sure on the good side.

The Road was directed by John Hillcoat and is based off of a Cormac McCarthy Novel of the same name. Both the film and the novel are about a post-apocalyptic world, where there are nearly no survivors and most of the people who are still alive have became savage killers and have resorted to cannibalism to survive. In this desolate wasteland, a boy (played by Kodi Smit-McPhee.) and his father (played by the wonderful Viggo Mortensen.) desperately move down the road, trying to reach the coast before winter hits. We never learn the names of the boy and his father, (or the boy and the man as there called in McCarthy's novel.) which adds to the films miserable tone. We follow their journey though abandoned towns and houses, as they try to avoid roaming bandits and killers.

Since it's an adaptation of a McCarthy novel, you can expect it to be bleak and violent. And the film really does a good job of capturing the absolute bleakness of a Cormac McCarthy novel. The cinematography by Javier Aguirresarobe is absolutely perfect even though it mainly consents of two colors gray and black. (which is okay since that's how the world is described in the book.) No matter where our protagonists go, they are almost always surrounded by dark clouds, dead trees, and faded houses. The cinematography really does a great job of putting the audience in the right mindset. The actors also do a really good job of putting the audience in the right mindset. It's a shame none of them were nominated for any major awards because all of the main actors deserved to be. Viggo Mortensen lives up to the standard he's set for himself, and Kodi Smit-McPhee gives one of the better child actor performances out there. Charlize Theron plays the man's wife/the boy's father, and even though she's only in flashback scenes, she's able to give a lasting and memorable performance. Robert Duvall plays another small role in the film. And again it's great. I'm not sure what direction John Hillcoat gave the actors in the film, but whatever it was it sure worked. In nearly every scene they all look like they just want to give up and end their lives, but they just keep trudging down the road.

The Road is unfortunately not a perfect movie, it still has several flaws despite its many achievements. The biggest of which is the product placement. This only happens twice in the movie, and while the first time is only moderately annoying, the second time is unforgivable. I won't spoil the scene, but they go as far as flat out saying the name of the product. That one scene, which is located roughly half way through the film, completely derails the entire movie. Destroying the tone and atmosphere that the film was trying so very hard to reach. Another problem I have with the film is a scene later on involving a chase in an open field. The scene is just sloppily handled, not to mention that it's over the top and does not fit with the rest of the film. There are some other minor things that didn't work. But I don't wanna nitpick every single bad thing in The Road, because overall it's a really solid film, that I would recommend to anyone that wants to feel like crap.

7.6/10

Daisy Miller is an adaptation of the novella of the same name written by Henry James. Daisy Miller was directed by Peter Bogdanovich, the same person who directed Paper Moon and The Last Picture Show. Both the film and the novella tell the story of Frederick Winterbourne, a young American man studying in Geneva, where he by chance encounters Daisy Miller, a young American woman traveling Europe with her family. Winterbourne and Daisy develop a deep connection with their short time together in Geneva, but eventually Daisy has to leave Geneva and head to Rome. Daisy wants Winterbourne to come with her, but Winterbourne says he most stay in Geneva for now, but will be in Rome eventually. Daisy is angry with Winterbourne for this decision and after a brief fight Daisy leaves. Eventually Winterbourne does go to Rome where he finds out that Daisy has been running around and flirting with several different men, and has been rejected by the high-class society there.

Adapting Daisy Miller into a film was a strange choice for Frederic Raphael (the screenwriter) to make. Because, well let's face it, it isn't a good story like at all. If you've read the novella you know what I'm talking about, and the reason that it sucks so much is because Daisy is such an unlikable character. She is annoying, arrogant, rude, and manipulative, but even with her many, many flaws Henry James was still trying to hold her up as a symbol for innocence and how American ideals are different from the rigid European customs. Which doesn't really work if the character you using to try and convey this point is a cruel deceitful arrogant bitch, like Daisy Miller. The whole book falls apart, in fact the reaction to Daisy Miller at the time was bad at the time it was first published that Henry James had to come out and say what the novella was supposed to be about, because everyone was getting it wrong. I know I'm dwelling on this but it deserves to be dwelled on. Daisy Miller is probably one of my most hated characters of all time.

But to be fair the filmmakers do to try to make Daisy a more likable character, however she still isn't even close to likable, but they do add some scenes that try to show that she isn't as bad as we think she is, and they also desperately shove the fact that she's "innocent " down your throat. The filmmakers also try to make the message of the book much more obvious. Which is good, but they do go a little to far, at some parts and even flat out saying what the message is several times during the film. Another positive I can say about the film is that all members of the cast and crew do really good jobs, all of the performances are at least good and some are actually pretty great. The set's, cinematography, and costumes are also all pretty good. Throughout the whole film I actually felt like I was in Geneva/Rome, not to mention that there is some fantastic lighting in this film.

Even with all of its good parts Daisy Miller is still a weak film, but I would say that it's far superior to Henry James novella. The filmmakers do a good job of trying to lessen the weaker aspects of the source material, and add some pretty good scenes. In fact I would like to see the same cast and crew adapt a different story, because if they do this well with a bad book, I'm curious to see what they'd do with a good one. But I don't think I can recommend Daisy Miller, it isn't terrible, but it isn't good either.

4.7

God's Not Dead is a bunch of nondenominational christians Patting themselves on the back, that is cleverly disguised as a film. At the center of the "plot" of Gods Not Dead is the story of a Christian college freshman, Josh Wheaton, (played by Shane Harper, and yes the character's name is actually Josh Wheaton.) who enters an introductory philosophy course only to find out that the class is run by an evil cruel atheist, who was obviously written by christians that have never met a single atheist in real life. And on the first day of class Professor Radisson (played by Kevin Sorbo.) forces all of the students to write "god's dead" on a piece of paper. But our hero refuses to confirm with the completely irrational demands of Radisson, I mean seriously philosophy is supposed to be about discussion, no philosophy professor would remove discussion from his classroom, but back to the plot. Professor Radisson then says that if Josh refuses to sign the paper he will then have debate with Radisson and prove god's existence in front of the whole class. Josh excepts this challenge. But this just wonderfully crafted story (I'm joking when I say that) is only the main plot, their are countless side plots/characters that the debate feels really not important.

God's Not Dead is pure Christian propaganda. But a film should not be dismissed just because it is propaganda, some of the greatest films of all-time like Battleship Potemkin, Birth of a Nation, and Triumph of the Will were blatant propaganda. But unfortunately God's Not Dead is the worst kind of propaganda film. And the funny thing is the film was marketed as this great film that was gonna convert so many horrid no-believers to Christianity, when in reality it was just something that was made that christians are supposed to watch and feel good about, because all the film does is reinforce their beliefs, while doing nothing to actually convert people, and the ending basically flat out says that Christians were supposed to be the ones watching the film.

The arguments on both sides of the debate are so laughably bad that it's not even worth getting into. Well actually let me just say this about the arguments, for and against god in this film. The Christian arguments are exactly what you'd expect, flimsy weak arguments that mainly rely on sophistry or appealing to emotion. And the atheist arguments are just terrible, because they're written to be terrible, because Raddison is the villain and he has to be proved wrong. The film never even entertains the idea that he could be right, actually the film never even entertains the idea that it's a debate at all, which makes for a very one- sided and mind numbingly boring movie.

Let's be nice and just say God's Not Dead lacks subtlety. Every single atheist, or even people that are just liberals, in the film is an arrogant irredeemable asshole. And every Christian in the film is an absolute saint, that is just trying to resist the evil godless system. All of the acting and writing in the film is really really bad. And I mean like 80s daytime TV sitcom bad. All of the characters come off as obviously made-up characters in a movie. The writing is even worse, every single thing/every single character says/does in this film is either really stupid, really cheesy, or is just said/done to move the plot along even though it makes no sense. Not to mention a lot of the side stories end up being really unimportant and not adding to the film at all. Like for example the side-plot about the preacher who can't start his car. Why was that in the movie? Why did we need to know that? The only reason I can come up with is to set up for the end, but the thing they didn't need to set it up. (you know what I mean if you've seen the movie) I would say that these were just added to artificially extend the running time, but the film is nearly two hours so they could a cut out a lot of stuff and it would have still had a decent running time. So I really can't explain why the car scenes, and several others, were in the film.

Even though God's Not Dead was universally panned by critics, it still grossed enough money to warrant a sequel, and several other Christian films from the company that made it. I don't hate God's Not Dead as much as some other films out there, but I can't really think of a film that not only fails at every single aspect of filmmaking but also spreads false information. There is not one thing that is even sort of passable in this movie. Everything is just terrible. And for the most part it isn't even funny bad. I can't really recommend this film to anyone.

1.8/10

In the early 40s a new sub-genre of crime films began to emerge in America. The sub- genre I am of course talking about is Noir films. These films were characterized by several, and yet vague, similarities. (Hard boiled police detectives/private eyes, Femme Fatales, "Whodunit" style mysteries.) And one of the earliest films to come out of the new Noir sub- genre was Otto Preminger's Laura.

Laura begins with opening narration that tells us that the title character (played by Gene Tierney.) has been murdered. And the film then follows Detective Lt. Mark McPherson (played by Dana Andrews.) as he goes around interrogating Laura's friends and acquaintances trying to figure out who did it and why. As can be expected of all noir films, Laura takes several unexpected, and sometimes unnecessary, twists and turns. Many of the characters turn out to be very different from what they at first appeared to be. And among all of this Detective McPherson starts to fall in love with the deceased Laura.

The story for Laura, like most noir films, is by itself pretty interesting and intriguing. But unfortunately it is for the most part ruined by the films weak dialogue and performances. I wouldn't call any of the dialogue or performances bad, but they're not good either. It all seems so stiff and forced, so many things in the film that don't make sense and just happen for convenience, for example in the beginning when detective Mark McPherson lets another suspect tag along with him as he interrogates other suspects, that doesn't make any sense, no detective would let another suspect tag along with him as he interrogates other suspects. And there is almost no chemistry between any of the actors, even the ones that are supposed to be in love. In fact you almost start to wonder if anybody really cares about anything, in the film, especially McPherson. Who, for the first half of the film, does basically nothing in solving the case, and doesn't really do much more in the second half.

But hey, even though the acting and writing are just meh. Maybe the film makes up for by having that classic gorgeous noir aesthetic? Well not really. Laura doesn't have a lot going on stylistically, the cinematography is alright, nothing game-changing, but it has some nicely lit shoots. (It is worth mentioning that Laura won the Oscar for best cinematography, which I think is most likely undeserved.) And the soundtrack is completely forgettable, not one part ever rose above passable. The production design is typical for Hollywood films of the time and is just functional. And yet even with lackluster dialogue, acting, cinematography, production design and soundtrack, Laura is still considered a classic today.

I can reasonably understand why the film was so liked at the time but today, it seems so dated and dull. The film isn't even that culturally significant. Several amazing Noir films came out before Laura, like The Maltese Falcon. And as far as I can tell Laura didn't bring anything new or innovative to the Noir genre, and noir films would have developed just fine without it. And after reading several reviews that highly praised Laura, I still don't have any idea why it's considered to be so great.

But for whatever reason Laura is praised as a masterpiece of American cinema. I've already said it won the Oscar for best cinematography, but it was also nominated for four others including best director. Laura was added to Roger Ebert's Great Movies in 2002. And Laura came in 73rd place on AFI's (American film institute) top 100 thrilling American films, coming ahead of films like Blade Runner, The Third Man, and Blue Velvet. And 4th on AFI's top ten mystery films. And in 1999 it was selected by the Library of Congress to be preserved in the U.S. National Film Registry. So for whatever reason people seem to really like Laura, and I, for whatever reason, can not get into it. However. I would still recommend that you watch it, because who knows you might enjoy more than me. Even though I would argue that the film is for the most part pretty bland.

6.2/10

Swimming with Sharks is the 1994 cult comedy about a young, naive, starry-eyed, kid called Guy, (played by Frank Whaley.) who dreams of making it big in the world of Hollywood producers. But before he can get to the top of the studio he will first half to "pay his dues," and that means being the lowly assistant to cruel egotistical producer Buddy Ackerman. (played by Kevin Spacey.) And Guy quickly learns that it's going to be the most miserable part of his life, because Buddy is incredibly demanding, constantly changing his mind, and show's no mercy even for the slightest mistakes. But as Guy begins to adjust to his new lifestyle, he begins to fall in love with another producer, Dawn Lockard. (played by Michelle Forbes.) And as their relationship develops, Guy slowly becomes more and more frustrated with Buddy until he finally decides to get revenge.

Swimming with Sharks fits right in with other 90s films like Office Space, Fight Club, and Falling Down. Films about how working class males were not satisfied with were life had got them and resort to desperate measures to change it. Swimming with Sharks takes a very comedic approach to this subject, but at the same time a very dark one. Kevin Spacey nails the performance of Buddy Ackerman perfectly, but then again it's Kevin Spacey, what would you expect? I can't remember the last time I saw a character that was as vicious cruel and heartless as Buddy Ackerman. This gives every scene in the film an underlying tension because you never know when Buddy will lose his temper next. A lot of Buddy's dialogue is great as well. The scene were he compares Guy to other objects in the office might be the best in the whole film. Just because of the clever writing and vicious performance.

Unfortunately towards the end of the film, they try to get you to sympathize with Buddy, and while the idea for it makes sense, (Buddy had to pay his dues as well, and now as he says in the film, "it's my turn to be selfish.") it really comes off as incredibly forced. I get that Buddy was supposed to be a good guy that was turned bad by the Hollywood system, but the way the execute is so out of the blue and melodramatic, that when they first started doing it, I thought it was a joke. Another problem I have with the film is that the other two leads seem so weak when compared with Kevin Spacey, don't get me wrong neither of them or bad, and Frank Whaley is able to pull of his character fairly well, and has some good line delivery. But on a whole the other leads just aren't anywhere close to Kevin Spacey, which makes them seem a lot worse than they actually are. The film also "jumps the shark," (pun intended) at the end, it goes way over the top and its themes get kind of muddled in all the pointless melodrama, but luckily it's able to bring them back for the very final scene of the film.

But overall I would say Swimming with Sharks is a pretty solid film, it has its weaker parts, but none of them are bad enough to ruin the film. Swimming with Sharks has become a cult comedy, in the same way Office Space has become one. Both films resonated with audiences at the time, and for a good reason. Swimming with Sharks is a film that portrays greed and the harsh truths of the world in a funny way. Which is something that you don't see a lot of in films.

6.0/10

Basic Instinct is a mystery crime thriller directed by the famous action film director Paul Verhoeven. The film is about the murder of a famous rockstar and the subsequent investigation by detective Nick Curran, (played by Michael Douglas) a former alcoholic who has a complicated relationship with his therapist. Curran and his partner Gus start by interrogating the last person he was seen with, and that person is Catherine Tramell. (played by Sharron Stone.) A multimillionaire, who has a degree in sociology, and writes murder novels on the side. And as it turns out she wrote a book a year early about a rockstar who gets murdered in exactly the same way. Naturally she becomes the prime suspect. As the police keep digging they find several dirty secrets from her past, and at the same time Curran begins to "fall in love" with Tramell.

Basic Instinct can be described as, "generic crime thriller." The odds are you've already seen everything Basic Instinct has to offer. But just because it's unoriginal doesn't mean that it's bad, unoriginal movies can still be fun, and Basic Instinct luckily has some pretty fun parts. The plot, while generic, is serviceable for the type of film Basic Instinct is, but it's nothing special. And towards the end of the film they take so many twists and turns that it made just sort of stop caring, because I just assumed that every piece of information the film was giving me was wrong, and was gonna be proved wrong in the next 2 minutes. So I decided to just wait for the big reveal at the end of the film. Which had so many fake outs that I started to get really annoyed.

Douglas is pretty good in his role, nothing amazing, but it seems like he put effort into it. And Sharon Stone is great as the seductive temptress Tramell. But some of the other actors were questionable, especially George Dzundza, who plays Nick's partner Gus in the film. A lot of Gus's lines are so awkward and stupid that you can't tell if your supposed to take the film seriously, for example "that magna cum laude pussy is screwing with your brain, Nick." And not only are there really stupid lines, there are also really stupid scenes, the dumbest of which is an incredibly out of place car chase that comes out of nowhere. Maybe that's just Paul Verhoeven being Paul Verhoeven, but god it did not fit at all with the rest of the film at all and just destroyed the films tone. Oh and as long as we're still on the subject of stupidity, let me just say that Basic Instinct does not know what the word 'alibi' means a pretty big issue considering its a crime film. Then again most Paul Verhoeven films are kinda stupid, but unlike some of his other films Basic Instinct doesn't have the excuse of being a satire to hide behind.

You get exactly what you'd expect from Basic Instinct, a fun, even if it's a little dumb, simple crime thriller. If you're looking for something frightening or challenging I'd recommend something else, but if your just looking for a little dumb fun you can do a lot worse than Basic Instinct. And if your into crime-thrillers you'll probably get a kick from Basic Instinct.

5.4/10

One of the most wonderful things about the art of filmmaking is that it is incredibly good at getting an emotional response from the people that consume it. Now that was a really pretentious way of saying that films are great because they can make use feel happy, sad, scared, etc. I know for me personally that a lot of my favorite films are the ones that are able to make me cry. And I think that we can all agree that it is truly a wonderful thing when a film is made with such devotion and passion that it is able to make its audience shed tears over fictional characters and events.

Unfortunately filmmakers know that audiences love when a film makes them cry, and some filmmakers will try and take advantage of that fact. They will make films that are filled with overdone clichés and over dramatized acting/dialogue in hopes of making the audience cry, because if you can get someone to cry at your film it's very unlikely that they will forget it, and they will probably like it. This is exactly the sort of film the Intouchables is, a cheap, insincere, artificial cluster of scenes that will do whatever is necessary to make the audience get emotional. These cheap films that target and exploit sensitive topics just so they can receive acclaim and attention, are in my opinion some of the worst films out there. They represent all of the worst aspects in filmmaking, and deserve to be called out for what they are, and they are detestable piles of complete s***.

I'm entering my third paragraph and I haven't even mentioned the acting, plot, cinematography or really any of the actual specifics of the film yet, and that's because regardless of whether you've seen it or not you can already predict everything that happens in the entire film. The plot is so structured and formulaic that it feels like it was copied and pasted from a text-book. The cinematography is at best dull, and at other times so bad I actually can not believe it was in a film with a 9.5 million euro budget. (which comes out to roughly 10.8 million dollars.) All of the actors give exactly what you'd expect from a movie like The Intouchables, and honestly I can't even remember a thing about any of there performances. Which is a compliment for a movie like The Intouchables.

The Intouchables received mixed reviews from critics, and was nominated for best foreign language films by the Golden Globes. Even though critics were split on the films quality, general audiences loved it. At the time of writing this review it is the 38th highest rated movie on IMDb, coming ahead of films like Apocalypse Now, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Seventh Seal, Ikiru, Vertigo, and even Citizen Kane. And I won't lie this upsets me, at least more than it should. The idea of a film as terrible as The Intouchables coming ahead films like the ones previously mentioned, (not to mention the dozens of other better ones in the top 250, and hundreds out of it.) just really destroys my faith in the film industry. I can not recommend that anyone watch this film ever. But even though I've been basically calling this film an indefensible offense on cinema. There are things out there that are much worse than it, so I won't give it the lowest rating possible.

2.1/10

In the earlier 90s Jim Jarmusch had already established himself as a cult film director, who was slowly beginning to get noticed and acclaimed. His past films had received critical acclaim, and had gained cult-followings. Then in 1989 his film Mystery Train went to the Cannes Film Festival and was up for the Palme d'Or. So with this new-found attention Jarmusch made his most ambitious film yet. That film was Dead Man.

Dead Man tells the story of William Blake, (played by arguably the best actor of the 90s Johnny Deep, and no, not the poet William Blake, though that will be relevant later.) a man from the earlier 19th century who has left his hometown of Cleveland after his parents died, and uses all of the money he has to travel to the frontier town, Machine, where he was promised a job. When he arrives in the town he learns from the heads of the company (played by John Hurt, and Robert Mitchum.) that his position has already been filled. Disappointed, and depressed Blake heads to the local saloon where he meets a former prostitute called Thel Russell. He then goes home with her and spends the night. The next morning he awakes only to find that her ex-fiancé (named Charlie), who disappeared a while ago, has suddenly arrived back home. Charlie then tries to shoot Blake but hits Thel when she moves in front of him at the last second. Blake then shoots Charlie and desperately runs out of the town, but eventually passes out. When he awakens a Native American (played by Gary Farmer.) is desperately trying to dig the bullet out of him. The Native Americans is called 'he who talks loud, saying nothing, or nobody for short. As it turns out Charlie was the son of Robert Mitchum's character. And Robert Mitchum has now hired bounty hunters to kill William Blake.

Everything I've said so far happens within the first half-hour of Dead Man so as you could guess it's going to be a very full film, but then again that goes with the films style. Jim Jarmusch has said that the film is supposed to be a psychedelic western and aside from the electronic guitar soundtrack, (which was mostly improvised by Neil Young.) I don't really get that feel. Don't get me wrong the film itself is very weird, and even has some surrealist moments, but I don't think I would ever use the word 'psychedelic' to describe Dead Man. No Dead Man feels more like your being dragged through the mud as you slowly die of gunshot wound in your stomach. The cinematography is all in black and white, and portrays the western frontier as a disgusting muddy dirty place people go to die. The film does a better job of bringing you down and making you feel like crap, than taking you on any wild trip, not to say that's a bad thing though. Dead Man is often compared to Cormac McCarthy's novel Blood Meridian, and while I have some problems with this comparison, it is more accurate to compare it to Blood Meridian than to call it psychedelic.

The problems I have with comparing Dead Man to Blood Meridian are, one it is not nearly as good as that novel. And two, Dead Man's tone doesn't match Blood Meridian's, in the first half of Dead Man, the film feels a lot like a black comedy. There are several moments that are supposed to be comedic, many of which made me laugh at least. Not to mention the general plot of the film is undeniably pretty funny. So in case anyone hasn't read Blood Meridian, let me just say that there are no comedic elements or moments in Blood Meridian. But as the film goes on it slowly becomes darker losing its black comedy element. This tonal shift doesn't really work, that's not to say that it's not executed properly but at the beginning of the film you're enjoying yourself and by the end of the film you feel like crap. It feels so cheap, there's nothing really special or interesting about how it happens or what happens, it just sort of happens. But then again maybe that was the point. Maybe I had just enjoyed the black comedy part so much that it frustrated me to see it go. Who knows maybe I'll enjoy it more on later viewings.

Dead Man premiered at the Cannes Film Festival when it was first released, and was even up for the Palme d'Or. But despite this the film received mixed reviews from critics. Some hailed it as a 'postmodern masterpiece,' and others claimed that it was 'boring and unrewarding.' It's status as cult film should go without saying but just in case it does need saying; Dead Man is now considered a cult film. And I think it's cult status is earned. Dead Man is probably the second most imaginative and creative western I've seen. (the first being Alejandro Jodorowsky's El Topo) Even if it's not a flawless masterpiece.

7.8/10

If I were to choose one genre of films that perfectly represented what sets American filmmaking apart from the rest of the world, it would probably be westerns or noir films. Westerns for the most are still being made today, but unfortunately the noir genre was very short lived only lasting maybe 2-3 decades. But don't be upset, because in the 70s several American filmmakers created a new sub-genre that tributes noir films, and films of this sub-genre are still being made today. The sub-genre I'm talking about is of course neo- noir. And one of the most creative and enjoyable neo-noir films ever, is Rian Johnson's Brick.

Before I begin talking about this film I should probably boil down what neo-noir films are, and how they're structured. Most neo-noir films are made to tribute the noir films of the 40s and 50s, by essential following the same formula and using the same tropes those films used. Most of the films center on some sort of hard-boiled detective or private-eye that gets caught up in some sort of case that ends up being more sinister/dangerous than it originally seemed. The protagonist will also meet several characters that include things like mob bosses, muscle characters, and femme fatales. Than neo-noir films will try to update or put a creative spin on all of these tropes. Brick does all of this, by taking the typical noir plot and characters and putting them in a high school environment. Brick tells the story of Brendan (played by a young Joseph Gordon-Levitt.) an introverted but clever high school loner, who plays the role of the private eye in the film. The film opens with him receiving a call from his ex-girlfriend, Emily, (played by Emilie de Ravin.) who he's lost all contact with, where she basically desperately begs him to help her, but unfortunately before Brendan can do anything, he finds her dead. The film then follows Brendan as he desperately tries to figure out what happened to her, and discovering a massive crime empire in the process.

Brick is probably one of, if not, they most original neo-noir films ever. Setting the noir storyline against a high school backdrop is such a simple idea, and yet leads to several creative fun scenes. (Like for example, Brendan is said to have once did dirty work ratting on people for the vice-principal.) But Brick is not only original and creative, you need much more than that to make a good film these days, no Brick is also one of the most enjoyable films I've seen in a long time. This is probably because one, we like the characters, especially Brendan who is written and performed perfectly, and want to seem them succeed. And two, the story is actually engaging. Brick doesn't feel like your watching a serious of events just play out like some films do, no, Brick grabs your attention and intrigue and holds on to it till the end of the film. We, as the audience, want to know what happens next, we want to know what's gonna be around the next corner, and we want to know what happened to Emily.

Brick is on the verge of being stylized. The film definitely has a certain aesthetic, and there are several moments that are filmed unconventionally, like the fight scenes for example. These fight scenes have strange editing and most punches happen off camera, these scenes (like most of the more stylized elements of Brick.) unfortunately are hit or miss, there are some that really fun and there are others that just feel silly and awkward. The cinematography (by Steven Yedlin.) and the soundtrack (by Nathan Johnson.) both are generally very strong but do have some weak moments, but overall I would say that both add much more to the film than they take away. Another minor problem I have with Brick is that at some parts it feels like it's pandering to a certain demographic (the indie-hipster demographic that is.) rather than just trying to be a really good film. It's difficult to describe exactly what I mean but at some parts it just feels like it's being quirky for the sake of being quirky. And it's definitely targeted at the 'not so popular in school' crowd, considering that the hero of the films fits into that category and he fights against all the other cliques at his school.

Brick is an excellent film that works because it mixes a creative premise with a tense and expertly crafted story and likable characters. Brick, unexpectedly, has a large cult following filled with people that will endlessly tell you how amazing the film is, and while some of them may exaggerate the films quality they are for the most part right. Brick is a film that you will want to return to endlessly, just to get lost in the wonderful world it has crafted.

8.6/10

The Babadook is a 2014 horror film directed by Jennifer Kent. (It's actually the feature length debut for Kent) The Babadook tells the story of Amelia, (played by Essie Davis.) a single mother struggling to raise her constantly disobeying child, Samuel. (played by Noah Wiseman.) One day when Amelia is putting Samuel to sleep, he finds a mysterious book on the book shelf titled 'The Babadook,' and asks his mother to read to him as a bed time story. The book ends up being utterly terrifying, resulting in Amelia getting rid of it. But strange things begin to happen and Amelia slowly becomes paranoid that something is after her and Samuel.

The Babadook is the film that gets a lot of stuff right, and a lot of stuff wrong. But first lets focus on the positive. Probably the best thing I can say about The Babadook is that it really, really tries to impress and frighten its audience. In a day when horror movies are all generic copies of each-other with predictable and cheap scares, it's a nice treat to see one that actually takes its time setting up a mood and atmosphere, and one that never relies on overused jump-scares to try and frighten the audience. But not only does the film actually try to be original and creative with its scares. It is actually scary. The Babadook is one of the only films I can think off that actually caused me to lose sleep over how scared I was by it. The scenes involving the book are executed perfectly, and I would be amazed if anyone wasn't completely terrified of them. Another positive is that all the actors do really solid jobs in their roles, especially Esse Davis. (Though the kid is incredibly annoying throughout the first half of the film.)

But I think it's time we started talking about where the film messes up. For one the film is a little obvious and heavy-handed with its symbolism and message. I'm not against a horror film having either of these things, in fact I'm completely for it. But a little subtlety would be nice. If you somehow haven't heard what the film is metaphor I won't spoil it, but let's just say there's no way you're gonna miss it. Another much larger problem is the third act, it is just way, way, way too overblown. They spend the first hour with some great set-up, and than they completely blow it in the last half-hour. They shove way to much in the later part of the film and you end up with a lot of unnecessarily parts, and eventually it just feels like the film is trying to artificially stretch its length to 90 mins. I really think they could have had a much better film if they just cut 15-20 mins off it. Another major problem I have with the film is the ending, it really ham-fisted and it seems like it console tell goes against the whole idea of the film.

In short The Babadook has some really good stuff, and some not so good stuff. But I would still definitely recommend it. Even though it has its problems because it's so nice to see a modern horror film, actually try to be good and original, and even better to see one that's legitimately scary.

6.4/10

The crime thriller genre is something that is particularly difficult to pull off. Most films of the genre end up being simple predictable and unoriginal. Even a lot of the films that are supposed to be great in the genre just end up being dull and forgettable. Luckily there are exceptions, films that break the clichés and tropes of the genre. One of these rare exceptions is Jong Boon-Ho's Memories of Murder.

Bong Joon-Ho is a Korean director, though while being popular in his home-country of Korea, and while never receiving any main-stream attention or praise here in the west it still has a massive cult following. Memories of Murder though not his first film was the first to get him noticed. The film is based on a string of murders in the small town of Hwaesong. The serial killer ends up being more that the small town detective, Park Doo- man, (played by Korean actor, Kang-ho Sang famous for his roles in Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance, and The Host) can handle. So detective Seo Tae-yoon (played by Sang-kyung Kim) from Seoul is brought out to help the local police to catch the killer. And very clearly he was needed, the local police are very clumsy when handling evidence, and often resorts to beating confessions out of people they think are guilty. Needless to say Seo and Park clash. They end up spending more time fighting with each other than they do looking for the murderer. This clash never feels forced, like it does in some movies. This is because the characters are well written and well acted, not cartoonish one dimensional clichés. But as more and more bodies pop up the detectives quickly become desperate, resulting in am intense heart-stopping third act.

Bong Joon-Ho crafted arguably the best cat and mouse serial killer film ever. But how did he do this? Well there was no one thing he did that made it so very great instead it was a large amount of different things that came together to make it a masterpiece. I already mentioned how the characters were written and performed. But another that he does that most American directors don't dare try is have happy comedic moments in the film. This is so very effective because by juxtaposing the comedic scenes with the darker ones make each stronger and more memorable. Few directors true to do this, because there's a fine line between making the film tonally stronger, or just tonally confusing your audience.

Another thing that Bong Joon-Ho uses to make Memories of Murder fantastic is world building. First the film is nearly entirely shot on cloudy days, (a tactic the David Fincher would later use in several of his films.) and throughout the film their is a constant state of "panic," for example in one scene when Seo goes to a school, the school children are conducting some sort of drill for an emergency situation. Or in another when sirens are blasting in the streets and someone says over the speakers that it is just a test. Bong Joon-Ho is also a master of directing the audience he knows exactly where to put are focus, and how to move the focus to be sure to keep us interested. Bong Joon-Ho's direction actually matches the story structure, how the detectives constantly shift form suspect to suspect desperately trying to find the killer. And not to mention the films strongest part: the ending. I'm not going to spoil it, but nothing in the world will prepare you for it. And I think it's safe to say that it will cause your jaw to drop, and you won't be able to get it out of your head for days.

I said it at the begging of the review, but I'll repeat it. Bong Joon-Ho has never received any mainstream success or recognition, (at least in the west.) but nevertheless his influence is undeniably. Quentin Tarantino named Memories of Murder as one of his 20 favorite films since 1992. And Memories of Murder was definitely the main inspiration of David Fincher's Zodiac. There are to many similarities between the two to deny that, not to mention that Zodiac came out only 4 years after Memories of Murder was first released. But even though major publications and websites have not given Bong Joon-Ho any mainstream success, he has developed a loyal cult following, and rightly so.