Cinema Experts

“I have to go right home. I know how to finish the script now. It ends with Kaufman driving home after his lunch with Amelia, thinking he knows how to finish the script. Shit, that's voice-over. McKee would not approve. How else can I show his thoughts? I don't know. Oh, who cares what McKee says? It feels right. Conclusive. I wonder who's gonna play me. Someone not too fat. I liked that Gerard Depardieu, but can he not do the accent? Anyway, it's done. And that's something. So: "Kaufman drives off from his encounter with Amelia, filled for the first time with hope. ‘I like this. This is good’.”
After the phenomenal success of Being John Malkovich in 1999, screenwriter Charlie Kaufman was commissioned to adapt Susan Orlean's non-fiction novel, "The Orchid Thief," for the screen. However, it didn't take long for him to realise that Orlean's book was basically unfilmable, its sprawling and ponderous story lacking any clear structure or coherence. After some months of struggling vainly to write a screenplay from the novel, Kaufman's script inexplicably became the story of a writer's effort to adapt an inadaptable novel. Kaufman's completed script was presented to his financial backers with some trepidation, but they reportedly loved it so much that they decided to abandon the original project and film his screenplay. Spike Jonze, who had also directed "Being John Malkovich," returned to direct "Adaptation," the quirky, twisting, self-referential film that received almost universal critical acclaim.
Much like Federico Fellini's classic 1963 film, '8½,' from which Kaufman almost certainly drew inspiration, 'Adaptation' tells the story of its own creation. Nicolas Cage plays Charlie Kaufman, the lonely, insecure and socially awkward screenwriter who is hired to adapt "The Orchid Thief," written by Susan Orlean, who is portrayed by Meryl Streep. The novel itself concerns the story of John Laroche (played by Chris Cooper), a smug plant dealer who was arrested in 1994 for poaching rare orchids in the Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve. As Kaufman struggles to write the script, his troubles are compounded by the presence of his twin brother, Donald (also played by Nicolas Cage), who is Charlie's exact opposite: reckless, carefree, over-confident and perhaps even a bit dim.
The script for 'Adaptation' darts back and forth between different moments in time, either chronicling Kaufman's screen writing exploits or Orlean's experiences in writing her novel. At several points in the story, more dramatic flashbacks take place: we see Charles Darwin first penning his theories of evolution and adaptation, a brief history of the grim activity of orchid-hunting, and, in one particularly impressive sequence, we are taken back billions of years to the beginning of life, to trace how Charlie Kaufman came to be here today. Though purportedly based on a true story, the events of the film are highly fictionalised, and the story always treads a fine line with reality, with the audience never certain of whether or not an event is real (in the context of the film) or merely a creation of Charlie's (or even Donald's) imagination.
Though Charlie Kaufman (the true-life writer, not the character) often receives most of the accolades for the film, it is director Spike Jonze who shared the vision to execute "Adaptation" on screen. His approach to film-making is always original and daring, never tentative of trying something unique for the sake of the film, even if it may offend the tastes of an audience that is unaccustomed to anything other than the mundane clichés of the modern movies that are churned out daily by Hollywood studios. If this wasn't completely obvious after the weird, twisted, fascinating 'Being John Malkovich,' then 'Adaptation' put any lingering doubts to rest. The director, who started his career directing music videos, seems to share a singular understanding with Kaufman the writer, and a mutual agreement on what the film is actually trying to say.
In addition to a clever story, 'Adaptation' contains some of the finest acting of the 2000s, presenting an excellent selection of seasoned talents at the top of their games. In arguably the greatest role(s) of his career, Nicolas Cage is phenomenal as both Charlie and Donald Kaufman, twin brothers whose complete polarity is startlingly evident in the execution of their respective film scripts. Charlie, whilst writing his adaptation, is determined to avoid the usual clichés and construct a film without any conventional plot, to write a movie "simply about flowers." Donald, however, blissfully oblivious to his own unoriginality as a writer, churns out a hackneyed psychological thriller, entitled 'The 3,' in which the serial killer, his female hostage and the cop are the very same person. In an ironic twist of fate, Donald's trite treatment is hailed as a masterpiece, adding further to the inadequacy already being felt by his disillusioned brother.
Cage is excellent, and often absolutely hilarious, as both characters, giving each brother a distinct attitude and personality, so that it is possible to tell immediately which is which even though their physical appearance is exactly the same. Meryl Streep is equally excellent as Susan Orlean, the journalist for "The New Yorker" who researches John Laroche and endeavours to catch a glimpse of the famed and very rare Ghost Orchid, if only to understand what it feels like to be passionate about something. Chris Cooper arguably steals the entire show as the charismatic and enigmatic Laroche, whose tragedy-afflicted life is dedicated to mastering numerous obscure fields (such as orchid-collecting, or fish-collecting), each of which is sporadically cast aside and permanently forgotten as soon as he feels it's time to move on, to "adapt" to another hobby. From four Academy Award nominations, only Cooper walked away with a statue. Notably, Charlie Kaufman's screenplay was also nominated for an Oscar.
In a nutshell, 'Adaptation' is all about failure. Charlie Kaufman is absolutely determined to write an original script, without cramming in "sex or guns or car chases or characters learning profound life lessons or growing or coming to like each other or overcoming obstacles to succeed in the end." However, after he eventually asks Donald to complete the script for him, it descends into exactly that. A visit to a screen-writing seminar by Robert McKee (memorably played by Brian Cox) – who is famous for warning strongly against Deus Ex Machina – is used as exactly that. Charlie Kaufman the character fails miserably in writing his script, but, ironically, Charlie Kaufman the writer succeeds ever so magnificently… 9/10

“I wouldn't want our marriage to get in the way of your dating.”
Dharma & Greg is an American television situation comedy co-produced by Chuck Lorre Productions, More-Medavoy Productions and 4 to 6 Foot Productions in association with 20th Century Fox Television for ABC. It first aired September 24, 1997, and starred Jenna Elfman and Thomas Gibson as Dharma and Greg Montgomery, a couple who marry instantly on their first date despite being complete opposites. The series also starred television veteran actress and Falcon Crest alumna, Susan Sullivan as Greg's snobbish mother, Kitty. The show's theme song was written and performed by composer Dennis C. Brown.
Created and executive produced by Dottie Dartland and Chuck Lorre, the comedy incorporated in Dharma & Greg took much of its inspiration from so-called culture-clashy "fish out of water" situations. The show earned Elfman a Golden Globe for Best Actress, out of a total of eight nominations, and moreover garnered six Emmy and Satellite Awards nominations respectively. In 2004, the plot loosely inspired Jay Roach's comedy sequel Meet the Fockers, starring Ben Stiller and Robert DeNiro.
Jenna Elfman plays Dharma Freedom Montgomery, Greg's wife and a flower child. She is extremely peppy and ditzy, but she also seems to be more compassionate and forgiving than most people. Dharma encourages Greg to seek happiness, rather than fret about practical issues like money. Due to being home schooled by Abby and Larry, she has a limited understanding of Western culture and is very naïve when it comes to trusting strangers. She is named after the concept of dharma in Indian philosophy. Once, a Native American friend of her father's gave her the name "Crazy Man's Daughter".
Thomas Gibson plays lawyer Gregory "Greg" Clifford Montgomery, Dharma's husband. He is an upright, uptight, decent, though sometimes surprisingly open-minded, man. Greg's life was hopelessly banal before he met Dharma and married her on their first date. Since then, he has played straight man to the antics of his eccentric wife. Though his and Dharma's relationship has been rocky at times, Greg has never been shown to regret their marriage. He is shown to be an alumnus of the famous Phillips Exeter Academy, Harvard University, and Stanford Law.
Susan Sullivan plays Katherine "Kitty" Montgomery, Greg's snobbish mother. She highly disapproves of Dharma and is often successful in making her feel guilty. This often has the unintended result of making Dharma try to make it up to her in a "special" way, which everyone tries (unsuccessfully) to talk her out of and which then leads to Dharma having another fiasco to make up for. Kitty is generally represented as a manipulative, controlling woman and the other characters tend to consult her when they wish to do something evil. As an elite socialite, Kitty was initially quite displeased to have Dharma and her parents join the family, since they aren't exactly the kind of family she can present to her country club friends. However, she comes to accept Dharma somewhat over the course of the show and has even gone to her for condolence on rare occasions. She has also tried, unsuccessfully, to make Dharma come around to her way of thinking, especially involving the "responsibilities" of being the wife of a Montgomery.
Mitch Ryan plays Edward Montgomery, Greg's eccentric father. His philosophy for dealing with women involves remaining as uninvolved as possible. Head of Montgomery Industries (though he keeps going to work only because he can see little tugboats out the window) and at odds with Dharma's father, who calls him "Ed" and whom he calls "Finkelstein." Ed is often seen drinking martinis and Scotch.
Mimi Kennedy plays Abigail "Abby" Kathleen O'Neil, Dharma's caring mother, who encourages her daughter and son-in-law to produce children; "Feel free to have sex anywhere." Although they have a grown daughter and later a son, she and Larry are not married. Unlike her "lifemate" Larry, she immediately accepted Greg, though she still constantly annoys and conflicts with his parents. She is a militant vegan, which is a never-ending source of trouble.
Alan Rachins plays Myron Lawrence "Larry" Finkelstein, Dharma's father. He is a stereotypical sixties radical who frequently rants about various conspiracies. Despite this, he manages to get along with Edward, often when both are sick of dealing with Kitty. It is often alluded to that Larry is a chronic user of marijuana, though never proven. In the pilot episode Abby explains his usual cluelessness with "he blew out his short term memory back in 1972".
Shae D'Lyn plays Jane Deaux, Dharma's friend. She considers all men more or less evil; over the course of the show, her hair went from black, to red, to blonde. She and Dharma met when Dharma was calling strangers to meet new friends. D'Lyn left at the end of the fourth season, though she had one "guest appearance" in season five.
Joel Murray plays Peter "Pete" James Cavanaugh, one of Greg's fellow lawyers and a graduate of the Bob Marley School of Law. He's a particularly bad, lazy lawyer and was married to Jane for a time. His entire life can be summed up by the interior of his apartment: a massage chair surrounded by empty take-out containers, next to this is a small refrigerator and a stack of porno tapes. A high-class entertainment center is in front of this. It is said he wears adult diapers to football games. Greg once said of his friend; "Pete went to Law School in Barbados, he failed the Bar seven times. The last time because he threw up on the exam."
The show is great, plain and simple. Absolutely funny, mixing a nice balance of silliness and humor, with wit and drama. The show at times can really pull at you and make you think. The culture clash - social clash is more accurate - is eye opening and brings out real ideas and social issues. But never strays from the comedy. Plain and simple… 9/10

“If I go back to the beginning, I could start it over again. I could go line by line; try and find a shorter way. I could try to make it... better.”
"Proof", the excellent play by David Auburn, was one of the best things in the New York stage in recent memory. Part of the attraction was the intelligent subject matter, math science, and how it connected the four characters one got to meet. The casting was an ideal one, Mary Louise Parker, Larry Briggman, Johanna Day and Ben Shenkman, playing Cahterine, Robert, Claire and Hal, respectively.
Mr. Auburn and Rebecca Miller, a movie director, herself, took the task of adapting "Proof" for the screen. The result, directed by John Madden, opens the play in cinematic terms, no small undertaking in presenting the movie to a wider audience who might not be interested in science, and much less in the advanced math that plays an important role in the proceedings.
Catherine, the 27 year old, at the center of the film, is a woman who has stayed behind to take care of her aging father, a man much esteemed in academic circles, who is suffering from, perhaps, a neurological illness that is killing him slowly. Catherine has, in a way, sacrificed her life in order to see that Robert spends his last days at home instead of at an institution.
The death of the father brings Claire home. This woman, who lives in New York, wants to get rid of everything connected with her father. She even has made plans for Catherine to move from Chicago to be near each other in New York, where things are much better. To complicate things, Harold, the nerdy math student, finds a hidden notebook that might contain a discovery that will revolutionize math. The only problem is the proof might not have been the dead man's own creation.
"Proof" works as a film because of Mr. Madden's direction. We are kept involved in what is going on because we have been won by Catherine, the wounded woman trying to live her life without having to tend to a sick man. Catherine love for math, in a way, makes her realize her place is in the same institution where her father made mathematical discoveries as she will be following his steps.
Gwyneth Paltrow makes an excellent Catherine, a role she had played on the London stage. Paltrow is a welcome presence in the movie because of the intelligence she projects when working with a good director like John Madden. Hope Davis, another excellent actress, plays Claire, the materialistic sister who has arrived and who wants to transform the frumpy Catherine and mold her to her own taste.
Davis has accustomed us to expect a valuable contribution to any film in which she plays. As Claire, she clearly understand who this character she is portraying really is.
Anthony Hopkins has only a few good moments on the screen. But it's Jake Gyllenhaal who deserves special compliment for taking on a role with nothing to hang on to, not even a stereotype, and turning it into a real person with passion, warmth and weakness. Finally, the script is just great as the characters talk just the way people talk, rather than deliver smart-Alex punchlines every five minutes. Maybe for some movies, that's alright. But "Proof" demands and deserves a lot more… 9/10

“Good things about Mr. Ripley? Could take some time… Tom is talented. Tom is tender... Tom is beautiful... Tom is a mystery. Tom is not a nobody. Tom has secrets he doesn't want to tell me, and I wish he would. Tom has nightmares. That's not a good thing. Tom has someone to love him. That is a good thing. Tom is crushing me. Tom is crushing me... Tom, you're crushing me!”
When it comes to naming the best films of the 1990's, The Talented Mr. Ripley hardly ever gets a mention. This is one of cinema's greatest mysteries; how can a film as well made, constantly intriguing and brilliantly conceived as this one constantly get passed over? And in favour of many under deserving films as well? Really strange. Almost as big a mystery as the one I've just mentioned is the web of intrigue created here. Through deep, complex characters and situations rich with double meaning, Anthony Minghella has turned Patricia Highsmith's original novel into a cinematic masterpiece. The talented Matt Damon stars as the talented man of the title that is offered $1000 to travel to Italy to try and return Dickie; the rich and spoilt son of a millionaire. What follows is a complex, disturbing and fascinating expose of a man ingratiating himself into the lives of Dickie, his girlfriend Marge and high society on the whole...
The main reason why The Talented Mr. Ripley works so well is that it's central characters are deep labyrinths that beg to explored and analysed. Every scene is rich with double meaning and character interactions that exist under the surface of the drama we are seeing on screen. The character of Tom Ripley is a true masterpiece of characterisation indeed. This sociopath, that would rather be "a pretend somebody than a real nobody" is a myriad of contradictions and muddled personalities. His actions are always amoral and through his lies and deception, it is obvious that he doesn't care at all for anyone around him. However, despite this; we are still able to feel for him through his tribulations. The story is told in such a way that it is difficult to feel for any of the other characters and all of our sympathies lie with the talented Tom Ripley. This puts the audience in a strange situation, as we're used to hating the antagonist and feeling for the protagonist, but this film turns that on it's head, and to great effect.
The film is helped implicitly by the fact that it's one of the most professionally made films ever to make it onto the screen. Every scene, every action, every line uttered is done with the greatest assurance and nothing at all in the film appears to be there by accident or out of place. The way that the characters interact with each other and their surroundings is always believable and we never question anything that is shown on screen. Anthony Minghella's direction is more than solid, and this is helped by the stunning photography, courtesy of 1950's Italy. Many times a film has benefited from Italy's landscape, and this is one of them. This is all great, but it's the performances that put the final finishing touch on this amazing masterclass of film-making. As mentioned, the talented Mr Damon takes the lead role and completely makes it his own. He often gets coupled with his friend, Ben Afleck, when it comes to acting; but this is very unfair as Damon is one of today's brightest stars. Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow make up the other two leads. I'm not the biggest fan of either of these two stars, but both, like Damon, give performances here that will always be associated with their personalities. Cate Blanchett has a small role, but the real plaudits for the smaller performances go to the brilliant Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who steals every scene he's in.The Talented Mr. Ripley is one stunning piece of film. Ignore the people that don't consider this one of the 1990's greatest achievements; they are wrong. The film is a masterpiece of tense situations, great characterisation and professional film-making. And I refuse to hear otherwise... 9/10

“She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita. Light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo... Lee... Ta.”
This is an excellent adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov's brilliant book about the sordid relationship between a grown man and a teenage girl. Although still disconcerting, the subject of pedophilia is far less shocking today than when the book was published almost 50 years ago. Yet, despite the subject matter, the book was wildly popular because it was a literary work of art, beautifully written with some of the most splendid metaphors and descriptive narrative in American literature. This was all the more amazing when one considers that English was Nabokov's second language.
Director Adrian Lynn (Fatal Attraction, 9 ½ weeks, Indecent Proposal) is no stranger to stories with perverse sexual content. His presentation of the story does the book justice although certain interpretations may not have been what Nabokov had in mind. Lynn gives us a presentation that is very sympathetic to Humbert. Nabokov's Humbert was very complex, partly a victim of his fixation on young girls, partly a sexual predator and partly a hopeless romantic. Nabokov's Lolita was extremely innocent, just approaching the threshold of sexual curiosity and urges, more playful than consciously provocative.
While Nabokov hints at a mutual seduction, he leans far more heavily towards Humbert as the cause of the events even though Humbert is clearly helpless in the face of his obsession. Lolita entered into the sexual relationship more as a result of longings burgeoning from her blossoming sexuality than a desire to seduce Humbert in particular, who was not even her first lover.
Lynn's presentation transforms Humbert from the seducer into the seduced, whose weakness for young girls is manipulated by a sexually precocious siren tempting him to dash himself on the shoals of pedophilia. Lynn portrays Lolita as the aggressor, an adolescent temptress who knows she is desired and simultaneously teases and entices him to do her lustful bidding, knowing he is powerless to resist. Lynn's Humbert is more of a hapless romantic than a fiend, ennobling him as a victim of love rather than the confounded sociopath he really is. In Lynn's version, Humbert becomes the fly to Lolita's spider.
However, after the initial seduction when they take to the road, the film is very true to the book in chronicling the decay of the relationship, Humbert's further plunge into feelings of romantic desperation and Lolita's shrewish exploitation of him as she increasingly uses sex as a weapon. The book was very effective at portraying the relationship as a symbiosis of two deficient beings, each selfishly taking from the other what was needed. Lynn does an excellent job of portraying that here. As the relationship degenerates, Lynn is effectual at portraying the ugly side of both characters. The bitterness and rancor that results is compelling. To his credit, he understands that Nabokov's story was more of a character study than a sex story and Lynn avoids the temptation of becoming too lurid, focusing instead on solid character development of two very flawed beings.
I must take a moment to give Lynn the highest praise for his period renderings. This is one of the finest portrayals of 1940's Americana I can remember. The costumes, hairstyles, cars, furniture, locations and sets create a 40's reality that is like being hurtled back in a time machine. The music is not just precise for the period, but it is perfectly integrated with the story. As the two travel, the music changes to reflect the region. Having Lolita dance and sing to period music on the radio is a nice touch because that is exactly what teenage girls of any era are apt to do.
The acting is first rate all around. When the film was made, Dominique Swain was 17, and although she looked young for her age, she could never pass for 12. So for the first part of the film before Charlotte's demise, she is simply too mature. However, for the road trip she is ideal. Though I don't agree with Lynn's early interpretation of Lolita as the teenage temptress, I can't imagine it being done any better than the performance Swain delivers. She is playful and provocative in a childlike manner, part pixie and part vamp. Once they get on the road, Swain hits stride with a performance that is almost a force of nature. She is powerful and intense, effortlessly moving back and forth between sweet innocence and the emotional torrent typified by the `murder me' scene. It is an outstanding performance with depth and breadth that is very unusual for an actor so young.
Jeremy Irons is wonderful as Humbert, giving him as amiable a personality as one could possibly imagine for a character with such vile intentions. Irons injects a good deal of wry humor into the part in addition to giving Humbert an almost quixotic romantic quality. Frank Langella (Dracula) is more obnoxious than mysterious as Quilty, making the audience want to exhort Humbert to pull the trigger as he confronts Quilty with the revolver. Again, I think this is probably Lynn's doing since his vision is clearly that of a Humbert sympathizer.
This is a fine film with great production values, terrific performances and a classic story. I feel that it surpasses Kubrik's adaptation in its ability to capture many of the finer points of Nabokov's book, even though Nabokov collaborated on the Kubrik film… 9/10

“That was the day I stopped believing in the wild ardor of things. Perhaps in love, as well. That kind of love. The love in books and films. The love that tells us to abandon our lives and plans, all for one brief touch of Venus. So often we fail at that kind of love. The world just seems too fragile a place for it. And of every other kind, life remains full. Perhaps it's just we who are too fragile.”
Todd Haynes' Far From Heaven, a homage to the 1950s melodramas of Douglas Sirk, is an exquisitely crafted film of beauty and grace. The world that Haynes creates is so meticulously detailed that one almost forgets that the movie isn't fifty years old.
Julianne Moore deserves her Academy Award nomination for her portrayal of Cathy Whitaker, a homemaker whose idyllic life begins to disintegrate when she learns that her husband is gay. Moore's Cathy is a delicate woman who would like to be courageous, but can't be because of the world that she is trapped in. As her innocence begins to die, she realizes how empty and superficial her life is. When she begins a cautious romance with her black gardener (Dennis Haysbert) she begins to see the racism and hypocrisy that forms the underbelly of a seemingly perfect world. At the end of the film Cathy has no illusions, and realizes that the life that she thought was perfect is actually a never-ending hell.
Dennis Quaid is equally stunning as Cathy's tortured husband Frank. After Cathy discovers his homosexuality, the two are forced to grapple with a truth that neither of them can comprehend. Frank goes to a doctor for "treatment," and his confession is heartbreaking. He says that he "can't let this thing, this sickness, destroy my life. I'm going to beat this thing." We look at Frank and pity him because we realize that such a feat is impossible, and unnecessary, but Frank does not possess that knowledge. Frank begins to drink more, and when he finally breaks down and tells Cathy that he has fallen in love with another man, all of the anger, shame, and joy comes pouring out of him all at once. It is a supremely moving moment, and the best performance of Quaid has ever given.
As the marriage between Cathy and Frank begins to unravel, the two also begin to fight.
All of Cathy and Frank's arguments and confessions take place at night, bathed in shadows. The truth has no place in this bright, artificial world, and it must stay hidden at all costs. One night, when Frank tries to make love to Cathy and can't, Cathy tries to placate him, saying that he is "all man" to her. At that remark Frank hits her, and for a moment the audience does not breathe. Cathy then asks quietly for her husband to get her some ice. Cathy is all restraints, and it is only with her kind gardener that she has a chance to break free. The scenes between Moore and Haysbert crackle with erotic energy because everything remains unsaid. When Cathy finally asks him to dance with her, it is a moment when we realize what human beings are capable of being together.
The fourth example of stellar acting comes from Patricia Clarkson as Cathy's best friend Eleanor. Eleanor is a bitter, gossipy, cold-hearted woman, and when she tells Cathy "I am your best friend," you want to scream to Cathy not to believe her. Clarkson makes the most of her rather limited screen time, and turns in a fascinatingly layered performance.In creating an artificial world, Todd Haynes has managed to lay bare the human soul in a way that has never been done before. It is a moving and important motion picture: we were, we still are, and will continue to be, very, very, very Far From Heaven… 9/10

“I'm sorry, I would sign, but I don't know the language.”
Meredith Morton is not the kind of woman you would call relaxed in social settings. She gets the case of the dry-throats which can result in her trying to clear it, and any attempt to alleviate her awkwardness results in her digging an even bigger hole for herself. And to top it all, she is the fiancée of Everett Stone, and he is about to do the criminal: introduce her to his family.
The Stones are the kind of family anyone would want to be a part of. Liberal minded almost to idealistic extremes, nothing is sacred with them, not the sexual escapades of youngest daughter Amy by one Brad Stevenson which mother Sybil casually makes a reference to (as if this were the latest recipe for apple crumb cake), not brother Ben's fondness for pot and nudity, and certainly not Thad's gayness and interracial lover Patrick and their intentions to adopt.
So why the hostility towards Meredith? Because, as Amy points out and they all come to witness, she's just wrong in more ways than one and Everett, whom they all love, is about to make a grave mistake in marrying her. Meredith lacks the warmth and spontaneity that makes for a complete human being and is a complete control freak who is as incapable of letting loose as they are incapable of being stuffed shirts. Matters get complicated when Meredith calls on her sister Julie and she reveals to be as different from Meredith as day is to night: she's the real deal. And something barely mentioned among the Stones, simmering below the surface has Sybil vehemently opposed to even the thought of Meredith becoming a part of her family.
The Family Stone certainly has moments of hilarity and is being marketed as a romantic comedy, but it really has a little too much emotional gravitas to be considered as such.
Maybe a drama/comedy should fit it better. It's a very poignant film that manages to touch sensitive issues such as terminal disease and gay parenting without ever hammering it in. If the time frame weren't so fixed where the story lines must be solved come Christmas it is possible that it were a shade more believable, but in the tradition of Christmas movies, it's all about the magic and wonder and situations finding closure.Despite a sizable cast, there isn't a role that feels underwritten. Sarah Jessica Parker, in her first starring role since Sex and the City, plays against her girlish type and becomes Meredith Morton - a woman too severe for her own good, too shrill for a family so lax.
Diane Keaton also plays somewhat against her intellectual type and shows what a mother's anger can do when a nasty comment is made. Keaton's interaction with Craig T. Nelson is so heartfelt one could think they have been married in real life for over thirty years. Rachel MacAdams has a field day playing a character whose messiness and blunt nature clashes in every aspect with Meredith's uptightness.
Claire Danes has a role reminiscent of Donna Reed - natural, girlish, wholesome - again a total opposite to Parker, and necessary to make Parker stand out as a sore thumb.
Dermot Mulroney and Luke Wilson also find the right notes in their characters: one wanting to make something of himself and believing that marrying an anal woman will grant him that, the other a sensitive man hiding under an apparent facade of neo-hippiness.
The Family Stone is a genuine, heartfelt movie and despite its political correctness it manages to be nicely subversive while also reviving Christmas films from the 40s, such as Meet Me in St. Louis (“Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas) and The Man Who Came to Dinner… 9/10

“We bury our sins here, Dave. We wash them clean.”
After three eleven year-olds from a close-knit lower middle class Boston suburb undergo a tragic experience where one is abducted and abused for four days, their lives diverge. The abducted one never overcomes the emotional trauma, another begins a life of crime, and the third becomes a cop. None ever venture very far from the neighborhood. When tragedy strikes again, their lives are gradually brought back together on a collision course that leads to some unexpected results.
Mystic River is a surprisingly dark film, with a controversial denouement. It is masterfully directed, acted, shot, edited, lit and scored. It is a mostly humorless and occasionally difficult realist drama, that will undoubtedly affect most viewers emotionally in a variety of ways - you may cry, you may become angry with at least one character and the lack of just deserts, and you may find it a bit depressing, although producer/director/composer Clint Eastwood and scripter Brian Helgeland do through in a relatively minor glimmer of hope/happiness at the very end.
Not that I tend to agree with awards organizations, but it should be no surprise that Mystic River has fine acting. A bulk of its many awards and nominations, including two Oscar victories, were for on screen performances. What is less recognized is the positive effect that the locations, cinematography, lighting and score have on the atmosphere of the film. Kokayi Ampah found the perfect, generic, metropolitan lower middle class neighborhoods, buildings and bars. It could be any slightly depressing, but maybe about to gentrify, suburb of Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit, or any number of at least Northeastern and Midwestern U.S. cities. Tom Stern's cinematography is continually, subtly inventive. Just check out the shot of Sean Penn where shadows from a railing form symbolic jail bars on the wall behind him. The lighting tends to the late 1990s/early 2000s look that is more monochromatic and leaning-towards blue. There are a lot of well-placed shadows, often creating a chiaroscuro look. Eastwood's score is understated but very effective.
The story is absorbing. There is an unexpected mystery angle that is effectively sustained until almost the end. But the most interesting part of the story to me, at least, was the extremely gray depiction of Penn's character, Jimmy Markum. Markum is revealed to be largely criminal, and not quite likable in his attitude towards his daughter (he doesn't respect her individuality, even though she's actually an adult). Yet at the same time, he is compared by at least one character to a "king", and in many ways, he is treated as one in the neighborhood. This may or may not be meant more metaphorically by the character saying it, but it is possible to read much of the film as being about a traditional king trying to live in modern day metropolitan suburbia. In some historical and cultural contexts, surely Markum's behavior in the film would have a more noble sheen, including his "mistake". This is perhaps why poetic justice never arrives, and instead, the character is seen as contented, with his queen and court by his side, being regaled with a parade instead. In modern contexts, many kings' behavior would not be so noble, and instead we'd notice more the injustices done to the peasantry and sympathize with them. Markum's character cannot be depicted more literally as royalty, as if he were far removed from the socio-economic status of the film's peasantry (although we find out eventually that he has more money to spare than most folks in his neighborhood), because it would be instead read as a moral tale of economic disparity as is exists solely in modern times. Putting everyone on a level playing field, more or less, is the only way to create a parable of how kings would be perceived, solely in terms of their decisions and actions, in our era. Long live the King… 9/10

“Even though we are too insignificant to be spokesmen for such a noble cause, we believe, and this journey has only confirmed this belief, that the division of American into unstable and illusory nations is a complete fiction. We are one single mestizo race from Mexico to the Magellan Straits. And so, in an attempt to free ourselves from narrow minded provincialism, I propose a toast to Peru and to a united America.”
From director Walter Salles comes a very moving road journey which had me completely spellbound by the end and I'm sure would gain many viewer's hearts as the infamous director dives deep into many different issues.
The story centres around two young doctors going on a motorbike journey around the world, not for personal gain but for the experience. This idea was completely outstanding. It gives the audience an understanding of young people's desires, not for personal gains such as money but for an experience into real life issues and wishing to know more about the world around them. These ideas I'm sure would make viewers aspire to be like the central characters to go out and explore the world and that was a reason why I personally loved this drama, because it gives inspiration to the audience and really moves them in a way which will leave you completely spellbound.
The film centres on many issues but one which stuck out for me was the heavy ideologies of health. In the year 1950 there were many health issues present in the poorer counties such as Peru and this Oscar winning drama is able to capture these issues magnificently. The two central protagonists are doctors and are wishing to help others with their knowledge and expertise as they explore the less fortunate countries to help with the many depressing health problems the countries are experiencing. There is a very highly emotional driven scene when the lead character tries to help a very ill woman who is refusing to be treated. Tensions are always running high in the latter stages of the film when many issues are wishing to be resolved and the central protagonists are putting themselves on the line to help the ill residents of the poor countries.
Having changes in situations was a very powerful technique. The characters experience a poor life and a rich life. Audiences will see different perspectives of life in the 1950s when seeing there are poor and rich countries and are divided by the smallest differences, such as illnesses. We also see more joyous moments and highly emotional driven scenes which also gives a sense of how life is, the good and bad sides are both expressed in equal amounts which in my opinion was a fantastic move and will capture your heart as it did mine.
Centred on the 1950s the film captured the essence of the politically driven time beautifully. Audiences see job issues, money problems and country matters which all juxtapose perfectly to capture the essence of the time and crate a high realism in context of the time.
The acting by everyone involved is absolutely outstanding and it confused me when not one received an Oscar nomination because Gael Garcia Bernal and Rodrigo De la Serna are remarkable as the two travellers. Both dealing with their own issues we see different types of characters but similar characteristics to which made the film more believable of society where opinions are divided but also shared.
Bernal plays a character who is always saying what he feels and is never wishing to back down from anyone or anything and he pulled it off tremendously. The passion he creates as the central protagonist Guevara is utterly astonishing as he deals with asthma problems, love lives and money issues. It's a lot for him to take as he realises how serious life can be. Serna to also pulls off a classic performance as the older more experienced of the two who is always looking for that little bit more than his fellow traveller.
Using different countries such as Peru, Venezuela, and Spain allows viewers to gain an insight into the vastness of life. Using poor countries as well as rich countries allows viewers to see different sides to the world in the 1950s and was pulled off greatly. The characters can therefore experience what a posh life is like as well as what life in the fast lane gives them. The camera work is astonishing. Shooting from Venezuela, Peru etc we see different perspective of the countries. The scenery is always beautiful with shots of the towns in a poor state and the general background of the countries is to be admired. The shots of the bike on the roads are to be admired. The camera moves adjacent to the bike giving the realistic effect of the bike moving fast along the empty roads, gaining a sense of freedom and enjoyment.
Forget poring over what's to become later; for now just enjoy that feeling of being able to take in the sights at your own pace, that wonderful exultation of liberty that the film conveys so well. Easy Rider on The Mighty One with the wind in your hair. Embrace the possibilities before reality eventually shows up and sets in… 9/10

“My name is Dalton Russell. Pay strict attention to what I say because I choose my words carefully and I never repeat myself. I've told you my name: that's the Who. The Where could most readily be described as a prison cell. But there's a vast difference between being stuck in a tiny cell and being in prison. The What is easy: recently I planned and set in motion events to execute the perfect bank robbery. That's also the When. As for the Why: beyond the obvious financial motivation, it's exceedingly simple... because I can. Which leaves us only with the How; and therein, as the Bard would tell us, lies the rub.”
Spike Lee is one of the most consistent directors out there. Save for some more uneven pictures like She Hate Me and Girl 6, Lee's body of work is just plain impressive. And while Inside Man is not up there with Do The Right Thing, Clockers and 25th Hour, it is definitely an entertaining and intelligent thriller that does things a little differently than most cookie cutter thrillers you see in theaters nowadays.
A bank robbery in New York has gotten out of control, and it's up to police detective Keith Frazier (Denzel Washington) to act as hostage negotiator and get the bank personal and customers out safely before things turn even worse than they already are. This turns out to be a tough case, since the leader of the bank robbers, Dalton Russell (Clive Owen), turns out to be a very smart individual, who has everything planned to perfection, and who throws up surprise after surprise for Frazier and his men. But while the people around Frazier are slowly getting more and more nervous, he himself does not lose his mind, and begins a high stakes battle of wits with Russell. Things are further complicated, however, when the mayor of New York introduces a mysterious woman to Frazier. This woman (Jodie Foster) wants to protect something that is hidden in one of the safety deposit boxes inside the bank, and she will stop at nothing to force Frazier to let her inside the bank and make sure nothing happens to the contents.
This all sounds like an intriguing premise for a thriller, but the movie goes a few steps further than just having an interesting plot. Because while Inside Man does hit all the right notes when it comes to keeping you guessing about what is really going on, it is also very successful in mixing the grittier moments with comedy elements. At times, Inside Man is very funny, but in a way that does not deflate the tension. The dialogue is sharp, with the conversations between Frazier and Russell being especially fascinating, and both actors are at the top of their game. Washington's Frazier is an intense but laconic individual, who has a permanent smirk on his face but who reads the bank robbers intentions better than anybody else, while Owen is charismatic and fascinating as the mastermind behind the bank robbery. I was a little disappointed however with Jodie Foster's role. While her part is potentially fascinating, she does not really get the chance to do anything with it other than look cool and act tough. Yes, we all know that she is very good at that, but with a bit more background story, and a bit more screen time, her part could have been even more interesting.
With Inside Man, Lee showcases an interesting way of directing thrillers. He ignores the usual build up that you see in thrillers, which consists of an introduction, a chronological development of the main intrigue, followed by a final act in which everything is wrapped up neatly (even flashing forward several times, thus revealing some important developments before they have happened), and this only serves to make Inside Man a movie that is more than your regular suspense movie.
I can highly recommend this movie, it is never boring for a moment, what's more, I was enjoying it so much that as events were progressing toward the climax, I was wishing it would go on. And that's very rare for me in the movies nowadays… 9/10

“You see, before he came down here, it never snowed. And afterwards, it did. If he weren't up there now... I don't think it would be snowing. Sometimes you can still catch me dancing in it.”
Tim Burton is a brilliant visual director but with Edward Scissorhands he managed to combine these talents with pure, classic storytelling and serving up a convincingly detailed left-of-center fairytale romance.
The story is fairly basic, being the standard Frankenstein-esque tale of alienation and the empowerment of love. Edward (Johnny Depp) is a lonely man with scissors for hands, crafted by an eccentric inventor (magnificently played by Vincent Price in flashbacks) prior to his death. After Edward witnesses the death of his creator he stays locked away inside his mansion all day, which is located atop the otherwise cheerfully picture-perfect local neighborhood community.
Then one day a nosy neighbor decides to investigate, and ends up bringing Edward to reality. He falls in love with a local girl (Winona Ryder), and is witness first-hand to the joys of life, until accidentally injuring a young boy and becoming the enemy of the overzealous town. Soon everyone is out to get him for no good reason – the climax is beautifully done and, because Burton has allowed his characters to expand so much, it's also very touching.
The movie is decidedly odd but in a good way – the only problem is that it is occasionally quite thin when it comes to actual depth. Burton's never been as good at telling believable stories as he has mythical, exciting fables. The mix of screwball dark comedy, horror, drama, romance and elements and familiar happenings of other genres results in a very different combination. You can literally "feel" the vibe of this picture, its heart pulsing black blood.
The movie was a childhood project of Burton, who drew sketches of Edward as a boy and used to alienate himself from his hostile surroundings by taking refuge in fictional stories involving the scissor-handed hero. As a result Burton's true affinity for the subject is evident – it's clear that he takes this entire project very seriously.
The acting is marvelous – Depp's performance is one of his finest and, arguably, one of the most convincing and fun of all-time. Depp has formed a Scorsese/De Niro-like companionship with Burton over the years, teaming up for various pictures (including Sleepy Hollow and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory). He's always had fun relishing his over-the-top and absurdly dark roles, such as Ichabod Crane in particular. In Scissorhands he gives the equivalent of a Travis Bickle – a man who feels shunned by society, only to open his heart and have it feel crushed again. This is possibly one of the reasons the film is able to affect its audience so well to this very day. The tale does not grow old because the values are timeless.
Edward Scissorhands, despite its occasional flaws, finally gave Burton the chance to unleash his talents as a visual filmmaker along with a pretty solid story mold – the result being a sublimely dark rom-com-drama that never conforms to the typical genre clichés and becomes quite a unique film in its own little world… 9/10

“The man who said "I'd rather be lucky than good" saw deeply into life. People are afraid to face how great a part of life is dependent on luck. It's scary to think so much is out of one's control. There are moments in a match when the ball hits the top of the net, and for a split second, it can either go forward or fall back. With a little luck, it goes forward, and you win. Or maybe it doesn't, and you lose.”
In "Match Point," Woody Allen, caught in one of his more "serious" moods, takes a simple tale about marital infidelity and turns it into something complex and fascinating. Although he leaves a trail of clues implying that this is to be another of his homages to Fyodor Dostoevsky, the film really turns out to be Allen's own version of Theodore Dreiser's "An American Tragedy" (albeit set in England, perhaps to throw us off the scent). The parallels between the two works are not perfect, of course - in fact they often seem to be intentionally inverted - but they are close enough to make us wonder if Allen did, indeed, do it all on purpose.
Jonathan Rhys-Meyers plays Chris Wilton, a down-on-his-luck social climber who marries into wealth but longs for the passion he finds with another woman. Chris is a professional tennis player who decides to leave the circuit when he realizes he hasn't the skill to compete with the real pros. Taking a job as an instructor at a posh, highly exclusive tennis club, Chris finds himself wining and dining with the rich and famous after one of his pupils, Tom Hewett, takes a liking to him and introduces Chris to his snooty but accepting family. Chris begins to date Tom's warmhearted sister, Chloe, but he is really smitten by an aspiring American actress, Nola, who just happens to be Tom's fiancé. Chris makes the mistake of marrying Chloe before Tom and Nola call off their engagement and go their separate ways. The fact that Nola is free but he is not doesn't deter Chris from pursing an affair with the woman who provides all the passion and excitement his loving but boring wife cannot. But Chris soon discovers that carrying on an affair can result in a life filled with secrecy, lies, guilt and self-loathing. And when the going gets to be just a bit too much for our hero to handle…well, there's always that "final solution" lurking in the wings, as many an earlier adulterer has discovered to his everlasting regret.
"Match Point" starts off very slowly and seems at first as if it will be just another tale of adultery and unrequited love. Yet, Allen really knows how to draw us into Chris' predicament, so that, by about halfway into the film, we feel as enmeshed in his seemingly irreconcilable dilemma as he himself is. Torn between the wealth and position he has as Chloe's husband and the love he feels for the relatively impoverished Nola, Chris is frozen into a state of paralyzing indecisiveness, his every waking moment a tormenting hell of fear and gathering dread as he keeps waiting in breathless anticipation for that other shoe to drop. It isn't until the "other woman" becomes more of a burden than his clinging wife that Chris can finally launch into action. This turnabout in the screenplay might strike many in the audience as arbitrary and implausible and there is certainly a case to be made for that. But if you can go with the flow, you will be delighted by all the little ironies Allen throws at us in the final stages of the story, which help to underline the filmmaker's thesis that, for all the efforts we make to control our lives, The Fickle Finger of Fate - or in this case a tennis ball precariously balancing on the top of a net trying to figure out which way to fall - always has the final word.
Allen has written dialogue that is incisive, intelligent and literate, and the performances he's drawn from the likes of Rhys-Meyers, Goode, Emily Mortimer, Scarlett Johansson and Penelope Wilton are superb down to the tiniest detail. Allen keeps his camera tightly focused on his characters, rarely pulling away from them much beyond a middle distance, keeping us firmly locked in the near-claustrophobic drama. Here is a movie that demands patience at the beginning but that really sneaks up on you the longer you watch it… 9/10

“They're not that different from you, are they? Same haircuts. Full of hormones, just like you. Invincible, just like you feel. The world is their oyster. They believe they're destined for great things, just like many of you, their eyes are full of hope, just like you. Did they wait until it was too late to make from their lives even one iota of what they were capable? Because, you see gentlemen, these boys are now fertilizing daffodils. But if you listen real close, you can hear them whisper their legacy to you. Go on, lean in. Listen, you hear it? – Carpe – hear it? – Carpe, carpe diem, seize the day boys, make your lives extraordinary.”
The setting is Weldon Academy, a very traditional New England boys' prep school in 1959. Robin Williams plays Mr. Keating, the English teacher we all wish we'd had. He brings warmth, passion, and an endearing quiet humor to the role as he fosters individualism in a school environment of total conformity, endeavoring to teach these young men both the beauty of the English language and the importance of living life to the full, of "seizing the day". How many of us mentally revolted at the dissection of poetry when we were in school? Many a viewer will both chortle and rejoice when Mr. Keating has his class rip out the methodical, emotionless "Introduction to Poetry" from the time honored Pritchard textbook!
The "Dead Poets Society", and the boys on which Mr. Keating has such a profound impact, include an interesting mix of characters...Neil Perry (the passionate young man at odds with his father's clearly defined expectations for his son's life), Todd Anderson (the classic shy adolescent, through whose eyes we view the unfolding drama), Charlie Dalton (the quintessential rebel), Knox Overstreet (the teen with whom most viewers can identify, deep in the throes of first love), and Richard Cameron (the mindless conformist).
Ethan Hawke gives a moving performance as Todd, the younger brother of a former Weldon valedictorian, who undergoes a character transformation as the plot unfolds. In a sense, this movie is really Todd's story and his best scenes are sometimes when he has no dialogue at all. Your heart will ache for him. The sub-plot of young Overstreet's romance with a girl from a nearby school may not be brilliant, but it provides some light, entertaining relief from the main drama.
Needless to say, Mr. Keating's unorthodox approach meets with obstacles...from his fellow teachers, from the school's ultra traditional Headmaster, from Neil's overbearing father and the other parents, who are depicted as a conservative, status conscious lot. His encouragement of adolescent individualism leads to dramatic consequences for one student in particular, triggering a dramatic scenario that engulfs most of his classmates. I don’t want to reveal the ending of the film, but it sure is a powerful one…

It's an intelligent film, both gripping to watch and thought provoking afterward. Engaging plot, memorable characters, meaningful theme, wonderfully done scenes and atmosphere...

Dead Poets Society has it all... 9/10

“A story: A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands, love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper; his hands remember the rifle.”
The first thing that may surprise audiences is that this is not necessarily an anti-war piece. Mendes and screenwriter William Broyles, Jr. have been careful not to make this film narrow in view. Instead, by focusing on the psychological turmoil of one soldier, Anthony Swofford (Jake Gyllenhaal), Jarhead is able to speak specifically about this man's experience and how it relates to those around him.
Mendes drenches the screen with sights and sounds that literally envelope us in the horrors of warfare. These explosions of vision and noise are counterbalanced, however, with scenes of great sadness and warmth. One scene that comes quickly to mind is a boot camp drill where the young soldiers are crawling under barbed wire--the sound design is such that we hear every character screaming or grunting as the gunshots zoom overhead. But then, the scene changes. An event occurs that allows Mendes to silence all of the violence and machismo of war. Amongst the hysteria of the scene, one of the soldiers freaks out and a gunshot is discharged. Mendes lets the camera witness this as if it hadn't expected it to occur. The characters are in shock, and so is the audience. It's just one of many powerful moments where Mendes changes from loud, visceral warfare to quiet, poignant moments.
Not that there's much warfare here. In fact, the lack of warfare becomes a theme for this film. Peter Sarsgaard, in a great performance, reaches his breaking point during the final third of the film, and it's a riveting moment where the lack of warfare has finally made him explode. His performance is very strong throughout, but it is not until the second half of the film when he finally gets the chance to break loose.
Jamie Foxx surprised me here. His character is so well-conceived, and works wonderfully as the counterpoint to the Gyllenhaal character. Foxx plays his scenes confidently, but also with touches of gravitas that, even in Ray, we haven't seen before. The scene that we get a glimpse of at the end of the trailer is wonderful in its fullness, and helps Mendes' film give us a well-rounded opinion of Swofford's opinions on the war. Foxx is by turns hilarious and profound.
And then there was Jake Gyllenhaal. Wow. This is an incredible performance. Watch for a dozen scenes where he literally explodes off the screen, but how he also juggles the quieter moments with great aplomb. What makes Swofford an intriguing character is that he doesn't always get our sympathy; or, for that matter, want our sympathy. He is scarred by war and his family and the life he left behind, and he is just looking for a way to get out of the sand and the sexual dysfunction of war and the lack of gunfire. Gyllenhaal captivates our attention from his very first glimpse, and his voice-over performance laces the film with irony and melancholy. He is a great physical presence in the film as well. I could cite more than a few dynamic scenes that he performs masterfully in, but I'll just mention one. Swofford points a rifle at a fellow soldier after a failed night watch, and then turns the rifle on himself, asking the fellow soldier to discard a round into his mouth. It's an indescribably painful scene to watch, but it's also an example of Gyllenhaal's brave and honest portrayal of this bruised man.
Some people have begun to write about this film as lacking structure or story, and in saying that I'm afraid they may have missed the point. This is a story about ambiguity of self, about dislocation, about ambivalence to war and love, about sexual frustration. In these terms, I think Mendes & Co. have found the perfect way to cinematically allow us to experience the same sort of blank complexity that Swofford must have felt.
As Swof's friend Troy says at one point, "Fuck politics. We're here. All the rest is bullshit". Which is all the movie is about, really. This is what happened. Take it or leave it. 9/10

“Hello, I’m Johnny Cash…”
The story of country legend Johnny Cash (Joaquin Phoenix) is told through his ongoing romance with fellow singer June Carter (Reese Witherspoon) and how they get through tough times, from Cash's pill popping addiction to Carter's own marital troubles until finally agreeing to marry Cash.
The focus on Johnny and June is what makes this movie so compelling. It serves as a filter: every detail about Johnny's career doesn't have be shown, we don't have to follow his life until he dies, and so forth. Instead, we can focus on the topic of Johnny and June, and the movie has a story with a structure and a happy ending. It also serves to make this movie more intimate than most biopics: we see Johnny's personal life, not only in short clips, but as a continuing theme throughout. It makes him more human. Stellar performances from both lead actors, particularly Reese Witherspoon, who portrays June's compelling personality very well. The chemistry between the two lead actors is great.

The childhood scenes also worked. In most biopics, these are very short and seem like gratuitous foreshadowing of the star's later career (see the otherwise brilliant Man on the Moon, for example). Here that was avoided by focusing on the brother's tragic death. That and the father's attitude served to explain Cash's problems later in life, and they weren't overdone. The death was touching, but not too dramatized; it seemed fairly realistic. We got to see just enough of Jack and the family dynamics to understand how devastating his death would be for the others.
Of course, the thing with biopics is that if you've seen enough of the genre you'll presume you'll know how the story will unfold up until the credits and then you can figure out the theme of life-affirmation. But that's hardly fair with the point of the movie. The film is about the character of Cash and how his humanity has failed to cope with everything that's happened in his story. Mangold and his co-writer Gill Dennis brilliantly stayed faithful to the story of the man they were paying their respects to.
"Walk the Line" is set in the post-World War II era, with culture in general and music in particular experiencing a great transition. It's underlined with a cinematography that borders on retrospective. There's one gorgeous shot during one of Cash and his band's performance which I think was done somewhat in high contrast, and it added a touch of sophistication and subtlety to the scene. It's this great use of technique that gives the film its emotional impact.
Of course, no review of the film is ever complete without saying something about the performances of the leads. Honestly, I think this is Phoenix's best performance to date. His authentic portrayal of the legendary singer is complemented with great crooning and such a delicate tenderness. Witherspoon's performance gives soul to the film, and her understated voice is a joy to listen to. She proves how talented actor she is and that she's more than the roles she usually plays. Because you’re mine, I walk the line… 9/10

“There are two kinds of people in this world, winners and losers.”
Keeping up with the recent buzz-worthy films coming out of Sundance the past couple years, Little Miss Sunshine is a gem of a movie. After loving crowd favorites Primer (2004) and Hustle and Flow (2005), I wasn't quite sure if the hat trick would be made. Sunshine seemed to have the cast, and direction, but the big question would be if it had the laughs to sustain the quirky indie comedy from not being overwrought and boring.
The co-directors set us up for what is to come in a very nicely designed opening sequence by going character to character, showing us each person in a small vignette of their personalities. This is the quintessential messed-up family with good intentions. Mom and Dad are bickering on how to tell their young daughter about her uncle's attempted suicide, while he sits and stares in a strange melancholy next to the mute, troubled son, (on vow of silence in honor of nihilistic mind Nietzsche), while grandpa spews profanities about the lack of dinner variety. I mean this is the epitome of every family function I've ever been privy to. There is so much a viewer can relate to in each member, allowing for a certain amount of compassion for the views of all involved and seeing that each really does want the best for one another, even if they have a messed up way of showing it.
Greg Kinnear and Toni Collette are wonderful as the patriarchs, proving as always that they are probably two of the most under-appreciated actors working today. Very rarely do you get to see them in a starring vehicle, and even though this is an ensemble through and through, they definitely carry it as the driving force. Alan Arkin does his kooky, quasi-angry, sarcastic yelling that he is known for. Everything he has done comes to a surprising result at the eponymous beauty pageant for the biggest laughs of the movie, really great stuff subverting the grotesque surrealism surrounding any pageant of this kind. Paul Dano is great as the troubled teen, trying to find a place in the world for himself, and coming to grips with the need for struggle in order to grow as a person, and Abigail Breslin is phenomenal as the happiest girl alive. Once she finds out she has won her regional on default, (those primary school children and their diet pills), she is on cloud nine as the family makes the road trip all for her.
The real revelation to take from the antics on screen is a career-role for funnyman Steve Carrell. Carrell has genuine talent and his suicidal, top Proust scholar in America, uncle is the shining moment of the film. He maintains the dejected quality throughout; even when doing something for the family, doing good, he is always a beaten man. That kind of character is what is needed for all his sharp, dry sarcastic retorts thrown about. He barely outshines the prop of the year, though, the family's yellow VW van. You will not see better prop-gags as the van takes a licking and keeps on ticking although the tick is faint and slowly fading away.
Little Miss Sunshine lives up to the strong buzz that surrounds it. It is heartwarming and funny at every turn. There are some dark moments, though, as there are in life. This film is a slice of reality, heightened just the right amount, for all to enjoy. And I haven't even mentioned that it happens to be the funniest movie of the year. 9/10

“You think you're telling me something? Like, what, boxing is dangerous, something like that? You don't think working triple shifts and at night on a scaffold isn't just as likely to get a man killed? What about all those guys who died last week living in cardboard shacks to save on rent money just to feed their family, 'cause guys like you have not quite figured out a way yet to make money off of watching that guy die? But in my profession, and it is my profession, I'm a little more fortunate.”
"Cinderella Man" deserves to be placed alongside other great biographical films dealing with the lives and times of great boxers. Such films include "Raging Bull," "The Joe Louis Story," "Ali," "The Hurricane," and "Ring of Fire: The Emile Griffith Story."
These films share in common not just a documentary-like approach to boxing or a superficial biopic. They also portray the human side of a modern gladiator and the culture that produced him. In the case of "Cinderella Man," we are given a detailed and heart-rending portrait of the Great Depression in American. The story of the gentleman pugilist James J. Braddock is the backdrop to the larger drama of Americans' struggle in the 1930s.
Russell Crowe provides a brilliant interpretation of Braddock, capturing the decency of a man whose career as a boxer would appear to have peaked at just the wrong time prior to the Crash of 1929. After that momentous event, Braddock's boxing went into decline just like the lives of millions of Americans. The scenes of Braddock and his family living in squalid conditions and with uncertainty about such basics as heat and electricity were carefully developed in the film. Renée Zellweger was outstanding as Mae, the caring but feisty wife of Braddock. Paul Giamatti was also excellent as Braddock's handler-manager, Joe Gould. Joe tries to keep up appearances by sporting fancy clothes. But in one revealing scene in the film when we see the interior of Joe's ostensibly swanky apartment, there is no fancy furniture other than a dowdy table and some flimsy deck chairs. Everyone is reeling from the Depression. In the depiction of the massive unemployment, the "Hoovervilles" of the homeless residing in Central Park, and the desperate need for Americans for an optimistic icon like Braddock to raise their spirits, the film truly captured the tragedy of the Great American Depression.
The film's director Ron Howard emphasized close-ups throughout the film with uneven results. In many of the boxing sequences, the close-ups and rapid editing made it difficult tell the fighters apart. The close-ups continued even into the domestic scenes and the outdoor sequences depicting Braddock working as a longshoreman. The film's dark cinematography conveyed the bleakness of the Depression years, but it worked against bringing out the buoyant spirit of Braddock himself and the optimism that he instilled in others.
Indeed, the characters and the story were the strong points of "Cinderella Man." Much credit should go to Cliff Hollingsworth for a screenplay that included thoughtful dialogue, humor, and multi-dimensional characters. Daniel Orlandi also merits praise for the brilliant costumes that helped to recreate the period of the early 1930s.

But the heart of this film experience is Russell Crowe's screen portrayal of Braddock. It was the colorful sportswriter and raconteur Damon Runyan who coined the nickname of "Cinderella Man" for Braddock. However, the real James J. Braddock was more than lucky. It was his strength of character in and out of the ring that captivated America. One of the most moving scenes of the film was a heated argument between Braddock and his wife Mae where Braddock insists that even in the most difficult of times, he would refuse to be separated from his children. As a boxer, he was fearless. But he demonstrated even more courage in fighting for family values—a lesson from which we can learn a great deal today in reflecting on this sensitive film. 9/10

“Do you have an appointment?”
The Terminal is a film that seems to be written for an actor like Hanks. Like the films Castaway and Catch Me If You Can, it's very character-driven. At times, the story loses its direction, but it could be intentional on the part of Spielberg (and the screenwriters), because that's the way the main character (Victor Navorsky) feels.
The film follows Navorsky as he lands at the JFK airport in NYC and eventually learns that he is stuck in the international lounge of the airport due to the dissolution of his homeland and the fact that the US will not immediately recognize the new government. As Navorsky begins to learn of his new predicament and how to cope, he makes mistakes and must use his mind to come up with alternate methods to get food, shelter, money and work. Truly, in many ways, Navorsky's story embodies what the mythological American Dream is all about with him using resourcefulness to show a sort of rugged individualism that causes him to "pull himself up by his bootstraps." That is one of the great strengths of the films script.
The other great strength is the much welcomed femininity of Zeta Jones' character about halfway through the film. At some points, the viewer might wonder how this relationship is going to resolve itself before the end of the film with Zeta Jones as the promiscuous flight attendant and Hanks as the wandering, yet trapped foreigner. Well, I'm happy to say, the writers make the brave choice with her character that isn't Hollywood. At the same time, she still seems to redeem herself.
I have to say it is a great one that first shows the meaning and beauty in our life about waiting and promise. Amelia is waiting for her dream to come true for eighteen years, for herself; Navorski's dad was waiting for something he honored so much for his life; and here comes Navorski, who waits for making his father's left dream come true, for fulfilling his promise, for the woman he fell in love, in a "crack" between the US and his own country.
He has done everything for others around him. If there is a great example of "egoless", he is one. Letting go ego, is the greatness that even Amelia found out when she gives up and scarifies something most important in her life to help Navorski.
This simple story conveys some wonderful philosophy for people living in this country busy around everyday for business, families, and so on, to slow down and reflect on something. As the retired officer said to officer Dixon, there is something we can learn from Navorski. 9/10

“Out of order, I show you out of order. You don't know what out of order is, Mr. Trask. I'd show you, but I'm too old, I'm too tired, I'm too fuckin' blind. If I were the man I was five years ago, I'd take a FLAMETHROWER to this place! Out of order? Who the hell do you think you're talkin' to? I've been around, you know? There was a time I could see. And I have seen. Boys like these, younger than these, their arms torn out, their legs ripped off. But there isn't nothin' like the sight of an amputated spirit. There is no prosthetic for that. You think you're merely sending this splendid foot soldier back home to Oregon with his tail between his legs, but I say you are... executin' his soul! And why? Because he's not a Bairdman. Bairdmen. You hurt this boy, you're gonna be Baird bums, the lot of ya. And Harry, Jimmy, Trent, wherever you are out there, FUCK YOU TOO!”
The Scent of a Woman is the kind of film that many would think belongs to a bygone era. While it is frank and contemporary without sugar coating it illustrates the value of character over glitz and how small acts can have long lasting consequences.The film pits two characters who are diametrical opposites. Al Pacino plays the world weary retired Army Lt. Colonel who through a stupid accident looses his sight and his way of life. Chris Donnelly is a young prep school kid on a scholarship whose way of life may be coming to an end owing to the acts of richer kids at the exclusive prep school who pull a stupid stunt.
The blind Lt. Colonel needs an escort so that he can go to NYC and have a rip roaring time before he makes a fateful decision. The poor preppy needs to earn a few bucks to travel and is in desperate need of some advice on how to get through his crisis at school.The interplay between the two characters is mind boggling. Both characters are asked to make life and death decisions that call for them to reach deep into their inner core. The right decision is unhappily the tougher decision to make.
Two terrific scenes that are not to be missed. The first is in the New York ballroom where the blind Lt. Colonel teaches the actress Miss Anwar to dance the tango. The second and most profound is the speech that Al Pacino makes in defense of Chris Donnelly at the prep school disciplinary hearing. It has to go down as one of the great orations of all times.
There's something about this film that keeps you company. It's like you're also spending the weekend with Colonel Slade. It entertains your darkest notions and tops your depth of grief and then somehow elevates you to find hope amidst our consciously blind existence. Really worth the two and a half hours. Every last second… 9/10

“Sometimes I wish I had never met you. Because then I could go to sleep at night not knowing there was someone like you out there.”
Set in Boston, Massachusetts, it tells the story of Will Hunting (Matt Damon), a troubled prodigy who works as a janitor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, despite the fact that his knowledge of and facility with higher mathematics far outstrips that of anyone in the university. Will must learn to overcome his deep fear of abandonment in order to learn how to trust and love the people who care about him. Good Will Hunting is the story of a young man and his struggle with both himself and personal relationships, trying to work through his problems so that he can open up to others, and begin putting his immeasurable intellectual potential to work.
Will, however, has no interest in pursuing a prestigious career in mathematics. He only reluctantly agrees to hold private lessons with the professor, being the only way to get out of jail after a spate of violence lands him there. Part of his parole deal, however, is to meet with a therapist twice a week. After getting a couple of shrinks to give up on him, Will finally lands with psychology teacher Sean Maguire (Robin Williams) who has a similar background as Wills', hailing from the same tough neighborhood in south Boston.

As Sean tries to get through to Will emotionally, the professor tries to train Will's mind in advanced mathematics. All the while, Will, who has had trouble maintaining a loving relationships due to his troubled past, begins to get seriously involved with a girl named Skylar (Minnie Driver). Meanwhile, the professor and the psychiatrist, who've had a rivalry of sorts back in their day, begin to quibble over what's best for Will's future.
Filled with great profound dialogs and intense emotional scenes, it's an immense emotional experience. It obviously has very 'heavy' subject-matter, and thus not an easy light watch, but it is very rewarding and entertains throughout. The most effective parts of "Good Will Hunting" show the conflict between two sets of parallel individuals: Will and Chuckie, and Professors Lambeau and Maguire. The intense and latent rivalry between the two academics describes a potential future for the two twenty-year-olds. Maguire consistently, at least on a superficial basis, searches for the default respect the MIT mathematician receives. Will, although reticent and clearly an outcast, seeks a similar form of respect, although not for his academic qualities, but for his social abilities. Throughout "Good Will Hunting," both pairs of spotlighted characters, after a series of enlightening "adventures," become comfortable with themselves. Despite this banal-sounding narrative flow, the execution is mostly interesting and often unpredictable.
Instead, of giving us a hokey feel good ending, Affleck and Damon offer something much more insightful and honest. Will recognizes that he must deal with lingering emotional problems before he can be satisfied and successful in any profession. The ending is only a recognition of the problem, not a solution. So instead of neatly wrapped up closure, Good Will Hunting ends with something much closer to real life. 9/10