Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows: Part 1

Directed by: David Yates

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint

Released: 2010

Country of Origin: UK/USA

Runtime: 146 min.

I've instated an unwritten rule in the last couple years regarding how I approach film adaptations of books: if an adaption is on the horizon, and I intend to see it, most of the time I will hold off on reading the book. A film should be judged on its own merits, without preconceived notions of how events should play out on screen. I find it completely impossible to do this if I've read the source material, and it's particularly hard if I loved the book (or comic). Granted, I will inevitably miss out on some very enjoyable reads, but I'm far more loyal to celluloid than I am to the written word. Personally, I'd rather see more movies based on original material than adaptations or the multitude of re-makes, re-boots, and re-imaginings that are overflowing at the box-office, but I don't see this trend changing anytime soon. I'm not saying they shouldn't happen, or that you can't make something brilliant based on someone else's ideas, there are many examples of this done right and some are even better than what came before. For example: I view Christopher Nolan's vision of The Dark Knight as better than anything else in the Batman universe. But it's sad that filmmakers don't strive to create their own unique universes more often.

I am by no means a hardcore Potter fan. I've read the first three books in the Harry Potter franchise, and I may read the rest, but as I've already said, I'd rather wait until the film series comes to a close. I've enjoyed most of the films so far, with the exception of the first two, which were terrible. I feel the series has suffered a bit as a whole by the near-constant changing of directors, having one director would have provided some cohesion and a singular vision which I think would have benefited the series greatly. I completely understand how nearly impossible that would have been, I can't imagine anyone willing to dedicate over ten years to a single project. David Yates has been the sole director since The Order of The Phoenix, and his films have been the best entries thus far. He seems to have a better handle on the darker aspects of the story, while still making them enjoyable and exciting to the passionate flocks of younger fans. Since most people are already aware of the ongoing sage of Harry Potter, I'm going to skip any talk of the details. Either you know whats going on and what's come before, or this is a story you just don't care about.

I went into The Deathly Hallows with some serious worries, mostly due to the studio's decision to split the last book into two films. The strategy makes logical and economic sense, few people are willing to sit through a five-hour film, and why limit your profits to one film when you can split it up and make audiences pay twice? However the split makes the film a completely unsatisfying experience. This doesn't mean it's not a great film, it might be. But without seeing the second half it's impossible to tell. The added knowledge that I won't see the conclusion for another eight months makes it even harder to appreciate Part 1. The first half is not able to stand on its own, it's clear that it needs the rest of the story to work. The biggest problem is the "end": while there was a big emotional climax that was used to close out this half, it was not enough to provide an acceptable finale to a 2 1/2 hour film. I felt extremely cheated when the credits began to roll. As unhappy as I was, I understand it's impossible to judge The Deathly Hallows based on what I saw. That would be like putting a book down half-way and then proclaiming that it was a horrible novel.

Despite everything I just said, I think this might end up being one of the best films in the series. Every aspect is handled with a high standard of quality. It's clear David Yates has become more comfortable and skilled with each film he has worked on. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint have all grown up to be excellent actors and truly embody their characters. I feel their casting ten years ago was one of the single smartest choices that the folks behind the films have made. The rest of the cast is filled out with what seems to be a greatest hits collection of the best British actors working today. There is also an extremely awesome animated sequence that tells the story behind The Deathly Hallows.

It's clear that the books have much more going on than what is shown on screen. I don't know exactly what I'm missing, but often these films feel extremely gutted. Some events seem glossed over, and leaves those who haven't read the books a little lost. Most of the time, this isn't something that causes much trouble, but it's still evident that we aren't getting all the details.

FINAL VERDICT: You probably already know if this is something you're going to see. I can't really say what my verdict is with this movie, it's not a complete film. It's got a rather long run-time, but I was never aware of that fact. When the film ended, it seemed too short. I was ready for more, and would've been completely fine with staying another 2 1/2 hours to see it through to the end. I guess that's the best and only accurate factor on which I can judge this. I was pissed when it was over, and felt like someone shut the movie off just as it was getting good. It had me and I didn't want it to let go. I can't completely judge it now, but it has the makings of a truly exciting film, once it's paired with the end. I just wish that there wasn't an eight month wait until Part 2 arrives.

In The Mood For Love (2000)

In The Mood For Love

Directed by: Wong Kar-wai

Starring: Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung

Released: 2000

Country of Origin: Hong Kong

Runtime: 98 min.

I have never been in love. It might sound sad to some, but it's just not something I've had happen. For the most part, I'm OK with this. With that lack of romantic experience, I sometimes wonder how much I really understand films that deal with those emotions. Can you really understand a cinematic depiction of romantic love, if you've never felt that? I'd argue, that yes you can. If you were to follow that logic, nearly every film that deals with something unknown to you would be impenetrable. Take holocaust films: very few people have experienced the horrors of that era, yet millions are impacted by their depictions on-screen. Any filmmaker worth his salt can take a subject and create something anyone can connect with. So when approaching Wong Kar-wai's In The Mood For Love, it's completely unnecessary to have been in love to appreciate the passion and heartbreak you see in the film.

In The Mood For Love begins in 1962, when two couples move in next door to each other in a Hong Kong apartment building. The story centers on Mr. Chow and Mrs. Chan, who both have rather absent marriage partners. Their other-halves always seem to be working late or away on business, leaving their spouses to spend most of their time at home, alone. Mr. Chow and Mrs. Chan, slowly build a casual acquaintanceship via various chance meetings in the building or outside on the streets. They begin to notice odd coincidences that lead to a realization that their spouses are having an affair with each other. As a coping mechanism, they begin spending their spare time together, swearing to never be like their adulterous partners, and play-acting how their spouses met and what it would be like to confront them about it.

The master stroke that sets this apart, is the absence of a physical aspect to Mr. Chow and Mrs. Chan's relationship, it shows an amazing amount of restraint on Wong Kar-wai's end. If this was handled by a lesser artist, the relationship would have a logical physical consummation, which would have cheapened the experience. The deep emotional core is kept intact with this strategy, much to same effect as in Lost In Translation. In both films, had the central characters slept with each other, they would have fallen into a plot device that is all too typical and thoughtless. Mr. Chow and Mrs. Chan do fall in love, but it's a love of missed opportunities and a deep desire to not lower themselves to the level of their spouses. It's heart breaking to watch as these two form a deep bond but are unable to morally act upon it at the time.

The film has the feel of a classic noir without the mystery, the colors are dark and moody, with scenes mostly taking place at night or as rain is falling. Wong Kar-wai has a certain style with his films, one that has a close comparison to that of Jean-Luc Godard. It's hip and oozes with that sixties French coolness while still being completely grounded in its Hong Kong setting. Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung are both common actors in Wong Kar-wai's films, and both churn out what might be their best performance in their already impressive careers. They both have a subtle charm, while avoiding the dramatic pitfalls of a story about lost love and heartbreak. Never do either display an emotional outburst, even in the scene where they realized their partners deceit, instead it become a slow revelation of something they both may have known but where unwilling to let themselves admit. These all add to what makes this film so special and refreshing.

FINAL VERDICT: If you like romantic movies that aren't your typical Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan feature, than this one is for you. Guys, this would make a great date movie and save you from possibly having to watch a film that just might make your IQ drop. Many years ago, I saw Wong Kar-wai's 2046. I didn't really connect with it, but I just found out that it's a loose sequel to In The Mood For Love. Based on how much I loved this movie, I'm going to have to re-watch that film, as I may have a better appreciation for it, now that I have the correct context.

Hunger (2008)

Hunger

Directed by: Steve McQueen

Starring: Michael Fassbender, Brian Milligan, Liam Mahon, and Stuart Graham

Released: 2008

Country of Origin: UK/Ireland

Runtime: 96 min.

I have some problems with overtly political films, most of the time I just don't care. I know I sound like a jerk, or just purposefully ignorant, but most of the time I feel far too preached at. It's a little annoying, and often the political message will take precedence over the film itself. This year's Machete is a prime example, it tried so hard to shove it's opinion on immigration down your throat, that I got irritated and my enjoyment of the film was diminished. It's too bad, because if you were to strip away that agenda, it would've been one hell of a fun ride. This does not have anything to do with my own personal beliefs, I am equally pissed off at films that try to bash me over the head with beliefs and viewpoints I already have. I also don't have a problem with someone making a film that communicates something they are passionate about, but there is a way you can do that without bashing your audience over the head with your doctrine. So, many kudos to British filmmaker Steve McQueen, for providing the perfect example of how to make a film about a very political situation and create a work that is artistically beautiful, crushingly brutal and completely accessible and impactful to a very uninformed viewer.

Centering around the 1981 Irish hunger strike that took the lives of ten IRA prisoners, Steve McQueen takes a politically explosive event and crafts a film that is less about the reasons and more about the determination and endurance of the human spirit. Minimal information is given on what led to these protests, a few radio broadcasts are heard which have Margaret Thatcher denouncing the political status of prisoners in Northern Ireland's Maze Prison but that's about it. Extensive knowledge isn't all that necessary however, I went into this film knowing only that this was a prison movie about a hunger strike. I know only a slight fraction of what went on during that time in Ireland, but the film lost none of it's unsettling power and I found myself emotionally moved without knowing which side of this conflict was more "right" than the other. McQueen took great care to make this film as non-political as he possibly could. It's quite clear whose side McQueen is on, yet he strives to neither idolize nor denounce either party.

Hunger has three clear narrative threads, acting to round out the whole picture rather then focusing on the obvious center of this protest. The first follows a guard who is clearly conflicted yet bound by duty, it's a bleak, sympathetic look at the other side of the fence. The second act follows two inmates during the "blanket" and "no wash" portion of the protest. The film than slowly shifts it's focus to the final sequence which involves Bobby Sands, as he enacts the hunger strike and slowly starves to death. I don't mean to give away the ending, but it's not a surprise and every plot synopsis fully discloses this detail.

McQueen cut his teeth as a visual artist before working on his motion picture debut, which is evident in just about every aspect of this film. During the "blanket" and "no wash" protest, the prisoners have "decorated" the walls of their cells with fecal graffiti, and channel all their urine under their doors and out into the prison's halls. Oddly enough, the poop covered walls take on an element of abstract beauty, if you didn't know it was poop you could easily see certain portions of the walls hanging in an art gallery. One shot in particular stood out, where a guard, dressed up in a hazard suit, is spraying down the walls and comes across a cell where the inmate has made a giant circular patten in his own waste. It's strange, disgusting and weirdly elegant. The sparse dialogue throughout the film creates a hypnotizing ambiance that makes the endless brutality and mistreatment of the prisoners, a very hard to watch and emotional experience. The only real conversation is found halfway through the film, a 26 minute talk, mostly shot in one take, between Bobby Sands and a priest. It's the centerpiece for the film, debating at length the realistic and practical ramifications of a hunger strike. It perfectly captures the unflinching determination of political loyalists without once mentioning the reasons for their actions. It's also one of the most amazing scenes I've seen all year.

FINAL VERDICT: I consider this a definite must see. It's deeply unsettling but an ultimately rich and rewarding film. It's far less something you watch, as it is something you experience. So, be warned this is not for the faint of heart, but it's still a film I think needs be seen. I'm very interested to see what Steve McQueen has in store for the future, as Hunger makes him a directorial force to be reckoned with.

Man Bites Dog (1992)

Man Bites Dog

Directed by: Remy Belvaux, Andre Bonzel, and Benoit Poelvoorde

Starring: Benoit Poelvoorde

Released: 1992

Country of Origin: Belgium

Runtime: 95 min.

If someone knows they are being filmed, can you ever consider the footage you obtain, "real?" Does anyone really act like their everyday self when they know other people will view what's being recorded? This is something I've often contemplated in regards to "reality shows." I think 99% of what you see would be considered, at least in part, a performance rather then anything resembling reality. Whether its video or a photo, there's an unconscious need to look and act our very best, the elements of ourselves that we want the world to see. If that is true, can we really consider a documentary to be an accurate portrayal of anything, or do we only see fractions of the whole truth. This, and many other questions are raised in the violent faux-documentary Man Bites Dog.

Man Bites Dog wastes no time in establishing the nature of what we're dealing with, within seconds the film's subject violently strangles a woman on a train. This is Ben, he's a wildly charismatic serial killer and is currently joined by three documentary filmmakers. They follow him as he shows them around town, introduces his family and friends, and educates us on the correct ratios for ballasting bodies so they sink in water. Ben is kind of a giant dork, he's constantly reciting poetry and even stops to admire a couple of birds in a factory while in hot pursuit of his next kill. He muses on whatever pops in his head, and considers himself a bit of a socialite, regularly attending art shows and other social events. Ben isn't your typical movie serial killer, he doesn't hide his trade and at times seems oddly proud of it. He's also funny and a little likable, which in itself is a bit of an uncomfortable conflict. At first the film crew comes across as interested observers, but soon get caught up in the chaos and begin participating in the horrid slaughters. On the surface, it's a simple film but it's implications are deep and unnerving.

The film acts as a statement not only on the nature of documentaries, but also the morbid fascination viewers have with violent images. With the rise of so-called "torture-porn" films, Man Bites Dog takes on an almost prophetic edge. Films of that nature sell tons of tickets because people want to see death, and they want to see it in a way that tops the last in terms of depravity. Watch a few of the more mainstream horror films from the 80's and compare them to what we have now, it's quite the shocker. Our culture's acceptance of brutal and sadistic killing on screen has hit a level I would have never anticipated. It's not like films such as Hostel didn't exists in the 80's, it's just they weren't made with huge budgets and marketed at the mass audiences of giant theater companies. To see a film like that you either had to see it on video, or a small niche theater with a couple dozen like-minded gore-fiends. I don't want to sound over judgmental, you could easily say I'm no different in this area. I liked both Hostel films, and I honestly can't say it was for artistic reasons. They shocked me and pushed the boundaries, something I admire and enjoy quite a bit. However, I've never been your typical movie fan, it's the fact that "normal" people have decided this is OK and acceptable that bothers me. I like media that crosses lines, but living in a society where these works are met with increasing popularity, kind of freaks me out. So, at what point do we begin to worry about what people consider entertainment?

Another question raised in the film is, when does objectivity become immoral in a journalistic setting? Most would consider what happens in Man Bites Dog, a definite point in which someone should step in and stop what's going on. If that's the case, should documentarians step in regarding other crimes, or is it just murder? It's a journalist's job to stay objective, but at what point should normal human decency trump that ideal. On the surface, it seems like an obvious question, but the more you ponder it, the more difficult it becomes. Also, at what point does an observer become implicit in what he sees, or does the umbrella of journalism cover any of our moral obligations. Man Bites Dog is a very exaggerated take on these questions, but it'll have you thinking for days to come.

FINAL VERDICT: I can't say I recommend this to everyone. While it raises some interesting questions, it's a film that stands mostly on it's statement. Films with such a strong message can sometimes drown their entertainment value in conveying what it's trying to say. It's better in my opinion, to make a film that may have a deep message, but also retains it's entertainment value for those not interested in things like metaphors. That's not saying this is a preachy film, it's not, but it's definitely one built to foster thoughts and discussions rather than a fun ride. If your looking for a popcorn movie, this isn't it. But if you interested in films that challenge the way you think and look at different aspects of life, this one will definitely get you and your friends talking. After this you might also check out Michael Haneke's Funny Games, which further explores the nature of watching violent images. I won't get into much of that film, but it's brilliant and a little insulting.

Mother (2009)

Mother

Directed by: Bong Joon-ho

Starring: Hye-ja Kim, Won Bin, and Jin Goo

Released: 2009

Country of Origin: South Korea

Runtime: 128 min.

South Korea is becoming a hot spot of sorts for intelligent film-making that adds levels of depth to otherwise generic, genre films. Films like Park Chan-wook's Vengeance Trilogy, 3 Extremes, and Mother helmer, Bong Joon-ho's previous feature The Host, take plot lines that would normally equal formulaic thrillers, and infuse them with deep and profound ruminations on human desire, family ties, and the lengths people will go to avenge wrong-doing. One of the dangers of watching as many films as I do, is that eventually you begin to pick up on typical story line formulas that make it far to easy to see what's coming next. Eventually, what makes a film enjoyable becomes less a matter of a good story, and instead shifts to how a director will exploit and pull off a story arch you've experienced a dozen times. Then sometimes, if you're lucky, you see a film that defies all your plot expectations and breaks the movie formula mold altogether. These are the films that for me get a very special place in my heart, and South Korea seems to have a very strong stake in that territory.

Mother starts off simple enough, a young man with more than a few screws loose is arrested for a murder he may or may not have committed. Due to his simple nature, few people in the community think he is capable of such an act, but a clue that literally has his name written on it makes it hard to suspect anyone else. His mother pleads for his release, and tries to fight the charges, but she soon realizes that there is no one that will help or believe her. She then begins her own series of investigations into the crime, with some help from her son's friend Jin-tae, they slowly get closer to the truth of what happened. This is where things start to get complicated, and not in the ways you'd expect. When I say "complicated," your first instinct will go to plot, but the complexity is a moral one. How far will a parent go to protect a child? Is it possible to become as twisted as the crime you're trying to dis-prove? Can someone as simple as the son, even be aware and responsible for what he's accused of? The biggest question in the film is, if you were faced with the mammoth sized moral quandary that the mother is faced with at the end, would you do anything different?

The thing I appreciate most about these South Korean films, is their embrace of the darker elements of human nature. The characters have true moral complexity, that show even the noblest heroes can easily commit acts that are often considered villainous. There is no black and white, and while the "hero" may prevail, you're often left wondering, was it worth it? Since I was a child, I have always been drawn to darker side of humanity. The villains always interested me more than the "good guys," they seemed more complex, more real. From an early age, we are bombarded with this idea that there are two types of people, the good, and the evil. You're either on one side or the other, and if you straddle the line, you're a bad guy. I understand the reason for this, good and evil are key distinctions to have for a developing mind. Children need boundaries, and these story ideals are a great way to help kids learn that. Still, the child version of me wasn't really interested in all that, I still always opted to be the bad guy and kill everyone. Maybe I was just a dark child, or had that rebel urge when I was in grade school instead of high school, it's really hard to tell what exactly went on in my head back then. I like to think that I was some kind of super perceptive child, that somehow noticed the inherent flaw in the logic that things are that simple. What I'm trying to say with my ridiculously long tangent is, people are not simple, life is not simple, and it's that understanding that makes Mother far more then your everyday thriller.

FINAL VERDICT: This is definitely a must see. Bong Joon-hu is an excellent director, and one to watch out for in the future. His last film, The Host was a family drama dressed up like a typical giant-monster-attack film, and one of my favorites of that year. While embracing the darkness in our souls, he is also able to inject genuine humor that's effortless and never seems out of place. This one is darker then The Host, but not as extreme as some of the other films coming out of South Korea. If you like this, and think you can handle going a little further into the darkness, check out Park Chan-wook's Vengence Trilogy (Sympathy For Mr. Vengence, Oldboy, and Lady Vengence). It's far darker material, but very excellent and thought provoking.

The General (1927)

The General

Directed by: Buster Keaton and Clyde Bruckman

Starring: Buster Keaton and Marion Mack

Released: 1927

Country of Origin: USA

Runtime: 75 min.

In the last ten years, I've devoted much of my spare time to the exploration of the vast world of cinema. I've made some major progress, but there will always be certain corners of film that get overlooked. I'm 27, and trying to catch up on over a century of movie making. I know that I will die with an incomplete picture of cinematic history. While that thought does make me a little sad, I know it's a completely impossible goal to achieve. In what ever years I have left on this planet, I will try my darnedest to catch up as much as I possibly can. That being said, I am fairly new to the silent film era. I started watching silent movies around three, or four years ago, and to be honest, I haven't made much progress. The fact that up until yesterday, I had never seen a single Buster Keaton film is something I should be very ashamed of. Actually, until close to two years ago, I had never seen a Chaplin film either. I apparently was missing out, because Keaton's The General is one of the best silent films I've ever seen.

The story is simple, a conductor tries to join the Confederate army to impress his lady, he is rejected, and she then rejects him. A year later, when Northern spies steal a train, and inadvertently kidnap his love, he takes off alone to get her back. The plot is simple, but it's timeless. This is an adventure story of the grandest order. It's exciting, hilarious, and at times even a little tense. Huge chunks of the film are devoted to the train chase, as Keaton tries to catch up with the enemy as they shoot at him, set fires and throw things on the tracks in an attempt to slow him down. It's one of the most entertaining chase sequences I've seen, and the level of craziness that Keaton delivers is down right impressive. Being, that this film was made over eighty years ago, makes the stunts and antics a complete marvel. Keaton runs around his small train effortlessly, jumping from car to car, riding on the cow-catcher with a railroad tie, all without the modern film techniques that make spectacles like this much easier to pull off. Keaton did all his own stunts, some of which involved great risk to himself. If some of the stunts had gone just a little awry, he could have easily killed himself in the process.

Keaton himself is brilliant. While he is often mentioned along side Chaplin, in talks of the great comedians of the silent era, they have very different styles. Chaplin takes his cues from slapstick, Keaton has a bit more sophistication and most of his humor is situational. He is extremely funny, but it's more down to earth than the antics of Chaplin. I haven't gotten a chance to revisit any of the Chaplin films I've seen, but I'd wager, because Keaton's humor is less reliant around sight gags, that the humor holds up better to repeat viewings. Everything he does on-screen has a grace and finesse that, with one movie, has gained my extreme respect and admiration.

When this film opened in 1927, it was met with negative reviews and ended up hurting Keaton's career greatly. Obviously, since then, the view has greatly shifted, it now is mentioned in numerous "greatest films ever made" lists. Public opinion is a strange thing, I've seen many films bomb, and then, years later, become films that people scratch their head at why it never did very well. Several movies have had a similar path for me, I started off hating David Cronenberg, and he is now one of my favorite directors. Maybe when I saw them, it just wasn't the right time for me. However, I have a hard time believing, that anyone watching this film, could consider it anything less than amazing.

FINAL VERDICT: I think it's fairly obvious what I think of this. I fell absolutely in love with it, and could see myself returning to it again and again. This could be the film that makes you fall in love with silent cinema. I think it's the perfect jumping off point into that world. Having to read title cards, is something that seems to bug some people, just about as much as reading subtitles. The General has minimal dialogue, and most of the action is self-explanatory enough that you don't need sound to keep you glued into what's happening. Give it a try, and I think, even if you have never seen a silent film, that you'll be surprised with how much you love it.

(Side Note: A year ago Kino International released a blu-ray copy of The General. This is the first silent film to be released in high definition. I haven't seen this on blu-ray yet, but Kino does amazing things with silent film restoration. There is no one that does a better job making these silent gems look their very best. Every movie I've seen, through Kino, has been mind-blowing in how modern and un-aged they can make them look. )

Gigantic (2008)

Gigantic

Directed by: Matt Aselton

Starring: Paul Dano, Zooey Deschanel, Ed Asner, and John Goodman

Released: 2008

Country of Origin: USA

Runtime: 98 min.

Sometimes I wonder if films like Juno or Little Miss Sunshine getting nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars has been positive or negative for "indie" movies. I was happy for both films at the time. It was nice to see some left-of-center films being recognized by such a prestigious organization, when films of that nature are often over-looked in favor of crowd pleasers, movies about the Holocaust, and social dramas starring Kate Winslet. I thought the attention might provide more opportunities for talented, up and coming directors to express their unique visions to a wider audience. Instead, it seems we have opened the flood-gates to movies that may have been best left un-made. Matt Aselton's debut Gigantic seems to be one of those features. That's not saying it's a horrible film, it had it's moments where I was genuinely intrigued. However, as the film progressed I became detached and uninterested in what was happening.

The film follows high-end mattress salesman, Brian Weathersby as he attempts to adopt a Chinese baby, navigates the beginnings of a relationship with a demanding customer's daughter, and gets randomly beat up and shot at by a mysterious homeless man. Brian is played by Paul Dano, who approaches the role with a quiet reserve that provides a polar opposite to the zealous preacher he played in There Will Be Blood. His life seems to be pretty simple and unruffled. In his spare time at work he checks up with an adoption agency, where he is hoping to get approval to adopt a child from China. This is something he has always wanted to do but seems to have no real reason why this is such an important goal. When an overbearing customer, played by John Goodman, comes looking for a mattress to help with his back problems, a small ripple begins to disrupt the calm waters of Brian's life. After the sale, the customer's daughter, Happy (Zooey Deschanel) arrives with payment for the bed. She is beautiful, quirky, and immediately falls asleep on the mattress she is supposed to pay for. Happy and Brian begin dating, causing more ripples and making Brian's quiet life more complicated than he is used to. Brian is also followed by a very disagreeable, homeless Zach Galifianakis who beats him up whenever he gets the chance.

I feel bad for Zooey Deschanel. She seems to be backing herself into a corner with the characters she plays. She never really does a bad job, it's just the type of role she seems stuck in is overused and approaching a slight level of annoyance. In Gigantic, she plays a cute, quirky, but ultimately damaged twenty-something who wants to be in love but is self-sabotaged by her own issues and spontaneous whims. This is, with a few variations, the same character she played in both All The Real Girls and (500) Days Of Summer, in which the roles work and the films are better because of her performance. So, why do those films succeed, when a film like this fails? Both, All The Real Girls and (500) Days Of Summer, have a clear direction in the story and purpose of the film. Gigantic feels like a first draft. Often it seems to lose its way, ideas and thoughts are started but fail to progress in any meaningful way. Many scenes seems completely unnecessary and often have a subtle pretentious air about them. Certain parts, such as the sequence where Brian joins his father and brothers on a retreat to the woods to bond with hallucinogenic mushrooms, feel as if the director is trying to express something profound and important only to come across flat and shallow. There may have been a good film here somewhere, but it's lost among mistakes that are common in independent dramatic comedies.

The aspect of the homeless man and his malicious intent towards Brian adds a level of surrealism that while slightly intriguing, is pointless and completely unnecessary. I understand that this previous statement may seem a little hypocritical of me, since my last review was praising the works of Werner Herzog and David Lynch. Both of those directors have been endlessly criticized for adding elements into their films that have no meaning and often seem to be strange for the sake of being strange. The difference here is that the surrealism seems completely out of place and adds nothing to the experience. Surrealism is a tricky area, it's near impossible to explain what works and what doesn't. It may come down to a personal preference but the surrealist elements of Herzog and Lynch seem to be used with skill and necessity, Gigantic's use of similar techniques seems amateurish and detracts from the film.

A good film will grab your attention and hopefully keep that hold on you until the credits start to roll. This film slowly lost my attention and it failed to connect with me in any way. At the end I didn't care what was going on and were it not for starting this blog to discuss almost every film I see, I'm sure I would be well on my way to forgetting it completely.

FINAL VERDICT: I can't recommend this film at all. There are plenty of people who eat up this kind of film and I'm sure those folks will love it. Maybe you will find something in here that sparks something in you but I found nothing of any lasting value in this movie. As I said, it's not horrible. It's forgettable. Something I often consider a worse sin than if it were completely awful. A film so bad I want to kill myself and everyone in the theater at least provoked an extreme reaction, causing me to never forget that experience. Ask me in two years what I thought of Gigantic and I will say: "Oh yea, that film. I completely forgot about it." Ask me in two years what I thought of Mamma Mia! and I will probably stab you.

My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done? (2009)

My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done?

Directed by: Werner Herzog

Starring: Michael Shannon, Willem Dafoe, Chloe Sevigny, Udo Keir, Grace Zabriskie, Brad Dourif

Released: 2009

Country of Origin: USA

Runtime: 91 min.

If you're going to watch this movie, you should at least look into who made it before deciding if this one is for you. It opens up with the words: "David Lynch presents a film by Werner Herzog." Now, for me that by itself leads to uncontrollable happiness and child-like hand clapping. For the unaware, it means you're about to enter into ninety minutes of surreal madness and be presented with a puzzle that will never be solved, nor was it meant to be. Both Lynch and Herzog live in a world where film conventions mean absolutely nothing. They don't play nice and will lead you on paths and trails that possibly have no meaning and may not even have anything to do with the "story" you're presented with. I think you should know what you're in for before watching this, it's a bit of a fans only type feature and I can't imagine many of you enjoying it without prior knowledge of how these unique filmmakers work and an appreciation of the lens in which they view the world. While it's not either filmmaker's best work, it's still a wonderful chunk of weirdness that I throughly enjoyed.

Based on the true life story of a disturbed man who kills his mother with a giant antique sword, the film takes great liberties with the true life story. Herzog claims around 70 percent of the film is fictitious and only loosely based on what actually happened. Conventional truth doesn't matter in a Herzog film, he takes a subject and tries to find what he calls the "truth behind the truth." Micheal Shannon plays the matricidal crazy man, Brad McCulum who becomes a little obsessed with a play he is performing in, randomly decides to become Muslim on a fateful trip to Peru, and sees the face of God in a box of oatmeal. He plays the character with such vivid intensity that it recalls Herzog's own infamous work with the enigmatic psychopath Klaus Kinski. Herzog knows exactly how to portray madness and has done so with great success throughout his long career( see: Aguirre, The Wrath of God, Woyzeck, and last years Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans). The cast is rounded out with Willem Dafoe as the homicide detective working on the case, Chloe Sevigny as Brad's girlfriend, and cult actor Udo Kier as his theater director. They are joined by two veterans of Lynch's films, Grace Zabriskie as Brad's overwhelmingly kind mother and the always awesome Brad Dourif as his racist ostrich farmer uncle. You may recognize Dourif from his performance as Grima Wormtongue in The Lord of The Rings trilogy.

The plot line is pretty straight forward for the most part. Where the strangeness comes in, is how Herzog presents the events. Both Herzog and Lynch have a keen ability to make the ordinary seem sinister and the mundane uncomfortable. Long takes, moments that seem like freeze-frames but in reality have the actors holding real still for extended periods, and Micheal Shannon's buggy eyes, all add to the sense of dread and foreboding that permeate throughout this feature. Much of it takes on a dream-like quality, like the flashbacks to Peru at one of Herzog's favorite filming locations, the Urubamba River, and a long sequence of Shannon walking through a market in China. The market scene was one of my favorites from the film, it's long and seems to have no real connection to the rest of the film, but is none the less mesmerizing.

With this film, Herzog is more concerned with the why as opposed to the how. He digs deep into the psychosis of Brad McCullum, providing vignettes of his descent into murder and madness through flashbacks via his girlfriend and theater director. While you get a clear picture of his illness, no real reason or catalyst is given to explain his strange behavior. It's mentioned that after his trip to Peru, he came back a little different, but that doesn't seem to quite cover it. In Peru, he is with a group of extreme rafters who take on more then they can chew and end up drowning. This would be the logical reasoning for his mental collapse, if it weren't for scenes showing an odd change and general strange behavior from Brad before his friends perish. Was there something else in Peru that caused the shift? There is almost a supernatural atmosphere to the Peru scenes and it's not hard to imagine an outside force messing with Brad's head. Yet, that seems far to simple. It appears Herzog has such respect towards madness that he doesn't assume anyone can really understand what drives people to insanity. It's a refreshing viewpoint in a cinematic world where audiences seem to need to understand everything and have the answers to their questions spoon-fed to them.

FINAL VERDICT: When approaching a Herzog or Lynch film, you have to throw out any and all ideas of how a film should work and know that you don't have to necessarily understand everything that happens. If your able to toss those ideas away and let the beauty and strangeness just wash over your senses, you're in for a treat. Herzog is an acquired taste and My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done? is not the best place to start. If your interested in his works, I'd start with Aquirre, The Wrath of God (which was my first Herzog experience) or maybe some of his documentary features such as, Grizzly Man, Little Dieter Needs To Fly, or Encounters At The End Of The World. If you're into this kind of film already, you might dig this, although I'm aware that a lot of longtime Herzog fan didn't. I'd agree there are many greater films in Herzog's catalog, but I had a great time with it and its occasional moments of beauty. There are also some shots of an ostrich stampede, which is just plain cool.

Survival Of The Dead (2010)

Survival of The Dead

Directed by: George A. Romero

Starring: Alan Van Sprang, Kenneth Welsh, Kathleen Munroe, Richard Fitzpatrick

Released: 2010

Country of Origin: USA

Runtime: 90 min.

Full disclosure: George A. Romero's original Dawn of The Dead is my favorite movie. No matter how many highbrow classics I see, the 1978 zombie masterpiece is the only logical choice for when I have to pick one singular favorite. Along with that, I am a huge zombie fan in general. Done right, the zombie genre can yield some amazing things (28 Days Later, Shaun of The Dead, The Walking Dead comics, Zombieland), done wrong..... well, they still kinda kick ass. I say this because you need to understand that while I bought this film as soon as it was available and I'm sure that I will watch it again, this is one awful movie.

Survival is Romero's sixth entry in the ...Of The Dead series. In case you missed what came before, let me recap:

1. Night of The Living Dead - Romero re-invents the zombie as we know it today and sets the standard for all zombie and survival horror films to come. A band of people hole up in a small house and try and survive the zombie apocalypse and each other.

2. Dawn of The Dead - The mighty zombie film masterpiece. Survivors take refuge in a shopping mall, become too comfortable in their surroundings, and it almost ruins them. It's part horror film, part social commentary on consumerism, and proves why Tom Savini was one of the best horror effects artists of his time. All around awesomeness.

3. Day of The Dead - Introduces the idea of the smart zombie that is able to learn and reason to an extremely limited degree. This one centers on a small underground military outpost as they try to domesticate the undead. Until this point, this one was the worst of the series.

4. Land of The Dead - Dennis Hopper vs. Zombies. Romero continues the concept of the smart zombie, an idea that provides some interesting but flawed results. Rich people hang out in a giant skyscraper completely removed from the real world, where lower class people are the ones that must deal with the constant onslaught of roaming zombies. Not a high mark in the series, but Dennis Hopper is awesome (as he always is) and it provides ninety minutes of watching the trashy hotness that is Asia Argento as she slaughters dead things.

5. Diary of The Dead - Romero, thankfully ditches the idea of smart zombies and brings things back to the beginning as young film-makers document the start of the zombie apocalypse, Blair Witch Project style.

That brings us to number six, Survival of The Dead and by far the worst of series. Almost nothing is good about this film. The acting is horrible, the effects are cheap, the story is lame, and worst of all Romero tries to insert the smart zombie concept back into the franchise. Nothing works as it should but zombies do get blown up, which provided me with enough entertainment that I don't view this as a complete waste of time.

The story involves a small island off the coast of Delaware that is inhabited by two rival clans of Irish folk who fight over whether or not they should kill zombies or try to keep them "alive" in hopes of a cure. In comes a small band of ex-military goons looking for shelter, their leader may be familiar as he appeared in Diary robbing the group of young film-makers. The rest of the film throw various things at you like: bad Irish accents, attempts to change the zombies diet to farm animals, death by fire extinguisher, death by signal flare, underwater zombies, zombie mail carriers, zombie fishing, and zombies riding horseback.

The biggest thing the movie lacks is something that should be essential in this type of film, zombie action. The living dead take a backseat to the human story, which is a huge mistake. For zombies to be effective you need a balance in terms of zombie gore and an engaging human element. If your human story is weak, then an abundance of zombies being blown apart in various bloody ways is needed to mask the shortcomings. Romero provides a minimal zombie element, apart from the obvious fact that everything revolves around a world with zombies, then throws out a brain-less premise that tries to add in the vary element that almost ruined the series to begin with.

FINAL VERDICT: I won't even try to rationalize why I kinda liked it. I shouldn't. It's a very crappy movie and comparing it to Romero's other zombie flicks makes it even more disappointing. I'm a completest and a George A. Romero fanboy, so if he ever makes a seventh entry, I'm sure I will watch and buy it. No matter how bad it is. For the rest of you, should you watch it? No. No. No. Not unless you are as die-hard of a ...of The Dead fan as I am. Even then, it's very iffy territory.

The Social Network (2010)

The Social Network

Directed by: David Fincher

Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, Armie Hammer, Rooney Mara & Rashida Jones

Released: 2010

Country of Origin: USA

Runtime: 120 min.

There are few things I can think of that have had as much social and cultural importance in the last decade as Facebook. I can think of only one person I know personally that isn't plugged into the giant social network. Despite the fact I made it through 22 years of life without any form of social networking, Facebook has wormed its way into my own life so deeply I can't imagine what it would be like without it. The closest comparison for me is the popularization of cell phones, throughout high school the only way my friends and I could connect was the old fashioned land-line but now I have a mild panic attack if I forget my phone when I leave the house. It would be scary/kinda hilarious to see what would happen if Facebook crashed and never came back, what would people do? It would be complete social meltdown. As awesome as watching people's digital lives disappearing would be, there is a part of me that would be freaking out along with the rest. No one denies the impact the website has had, but I never once thought a film about its creation would be as awesome as David Fincher's The Social Network is.

The Social Network starts with one of the best opening/breakup scenes ever. Mark Zuckerberg, played by Jesse Eisenberg sits in a pub with his girlfriend and proceeds to piss her off so much she breaks up with him, walks out, and calls him an asshole. A movie with such a uninteresting premise needed an opening this strong. While it sets every whirlwind moment that follows in motion, it also provides a cinematic hook that pierces through the soft flesh of your cheek and reels you along for the next two hours. The rest of the film follows Zuckerberg as he creates Facebook after pissing off the entire female population at Harvard by creating a "hot or not" style website. He's a nerd with tunnel vision and as the project consumes his life, he proceeds to piss off his friends, screw over his business partners, and generally act anti-social and disagreeable.

The dramatization of the events have had a little backlash with this film. Some have had a hard time getting into the film based purely on the discrepancies it has with the actual story. Even the opening is an entirely fictional event and the girl that breaks up with him, played by Rooney Mara never existed. I am a tad notorious in my inability to enjoy films based on novels I've read when they deviate from their source, but I'd argue that with The Social Network it doesn't really matter what happened. I knew going into it that it was at least partially fictionalized and it didn't affect my viewing experience at all. I really liked how the film was set up, working within the framework of Zuckerberg's legal disputes and coloring the events almost as flashbacks to move the story along. I'm not sure this was something intentional or an angle I made up on my own, but I think it provides a bit of an out for the film makers in terms of factuality. Like all legal proceedings, testimony has to be weighed with the possibility that everyone involved will view certain events in a different light and color them with their own feelings and viewpoints.

The biggest things that The Social Network has going for it are the script and the performances. Aaron Sorkin's script is incredible, it's razor sharp and manages to makes computer programing, something that is only fully understood by certain people, easy to comprehend and follow along with. It's one of the more intelligent scripts I've seen this year, it never treats the audience as idiots but manages to be smart and accessible at the same time. Excellent scripting is fine but without a cast that can take the written words and deliver them with perfection, a script is about as useful as something that is not very useful (clearly my wit is completely intact tonight). Jesse Eisenberg has a bit of niche, every film I've seen him in he has played someone either so intelligent he can't relate to people or someone trying to be so intelligent that he comes off pretentious and thus can't relate to people. While he's running the risk of being forever typecast as a socially inept nerd, with this film he takes what he's already good at and blows any of his past performances out of the water. His timing and delivery of each line is perfect and I will be very surprised if he's not nominated this year for best actor. Actually, the whole cast is top-notch, even that girl from Disney's The Suite Life With Zack & Cody (yes I know her name, but I'm refusing to refer to her as anything but "that girl from Disney's The Suite Life With Zack & Cody) but the biggest surprise is Justin Timberlake. He's a genuine scene stealer and I would fully support a nod for best supporting actor at the Oscar's this year. He is so good that you completely forget that he's Justin "Cry Me A River" Timberlake, which for someone as high profile as he is, is no small accomplishment. These last few sentences are ones I never thought I'd ever write, much like last year when I was raving about Mariah Carey's performance in Precious. I was also really impressed with what limited screen-time Rooney Mara had, it makes me a little less nervous about her role as Lisbeth Salander in the American adaptation of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, which will be David Fincher's next project as director after The Social Network.

FINAL VERDICT: I think this is a film that just about anyone can get into. It's got an awesome script, great director, great cast, and a very impressive soundtrack by Nail Inch Nail's Trent Reznor. It also avoids one of the pitfalls in films like this, no moral is entwined into the end where it doesn't need one. If they would have gone that route, it would have cheapened the experience and probably left me with a sour taste in my mouth. I would recommend that you go see this before its leaves theaters, which if you're in Billings that means you have to go tonight, so... good luck. I know a lot of people seem to get kinda hyper-critical of films that are as critically praised as this film has been. I see that happen often and I don't understand it at all. I'm not sure if it's a general resentment that these people are somehow trying to tell you what to watch or a bit of hurt feelings when a critic tears a film apart that you love. I like and appreciate critics, I have my favorites whose taste I understand and relate to. I don't always agree but I usually understand why they viewed something the way they did. Usually, films that are as good as The Social Network get high amounts of praise, so don't let any prejudice on critically praised films discourage you from seeing it, that reasoning would just be stupid. Great films are great for a reason, because they're great. (And that may have been one of the dumbest sentences I have ever written.)

Tokyo Drifter (1966)

Tokyo Drifter

Directed by: Seijun Suzuki

Starring: Tetsuya Watari, Chieko Matsubara, & Hideaki Nitani

Released: 1966

Country of Origin: Japan

Runtime: 89 min.

Years ago, my old roommate kept pestering me to watch something by Seijen Suzuki. He claimed it was something I desperately needed to see and even had a copy of Tokyo Drifter sitting atop our DVD player for many months. Yet I didn't watch it. It's not that I didn't want to see it, I just had many other films on the horizon I had planned to watch, which is always the case. People recommend films to me all the time, something that comes with the territory of being a self-professed film nerd. However, there are very few people who have the cinematic clout to warrant checking out a film immediately. I'm not trying to sound like an elitist ass, but that's just how it is. When your current list of films to watch is over 500 titles long, you have to be a little selective on who you listen to. My old roommate, Brian is one of those people I will usually listen to. (minus my refusal to watch The New World with Colin Ferrell, no matter how much he goes on about it) He is partially responsible for my love for the works of Robert Bresson and Jean-Luc Godard, so I really should have listened to him 4 years ago. He was right, I really needed to see Tokyo Drifter, yet it's a film I don't think will be appealing for everyone.

Seijen Suzuki had a bit of a crazy relationship with the studio he worked for in Japan. After years of working for Nikkatsu Studios, Suzuki became restless and a little crazy. He started indulging his artistic whims and began making films that were increasingly bizarre and unconventional, at least for major Japanese studios in the 50's and 60's. If you know anything about the Japanese film industry in that period, which I'm guessing you don't, it wasn't one that upheld the notion of individualistic film-making. Film-makers employed by major studios were expected to churn out films that were made fast, cheap, and marketed for mass appeal. Some of this may be residual effects from the 30's, when the Japanese government had their hands in the pockets of most major studios. It wasn't until the post-war period, when an increasing American influence in both art and social dynamics began sweeping the nation, that directors had chances to explore their more stylistic and expressive natures. Still, by 1966 when Tokyo Drifter was released, there was some remnants of that cookie-cutter film aesthetic left intact. Before filming, Nikkatsu Studios told Suzuki to "play it straight" and even cut his budget and shooting time in hopes to keep him reigned in. When he delivered Tokyo Drifter to them, it was nothing sort of a middle finger straight in their faces.

Plot wise, Tokyo Drifter is your typical yakuza style film. It follows a stylishly cool ex-yakuza, Tetsu as he tries to reform and stay grounded within the law. Plot isn't this film's strong point, at times the story is a tad hard to follow. There are several gaps that can leave you scratching your head as you try to catch up with what's going on. This is a film built almost entirely on style. It's because of the over-indulgence in style that this flick is so gosh darn entertaining to watch. Even from its over-saturated black and white opening, you can tell this is something a little off from the Japanese norm. Some of the pacing and editing reminds me a bit of Godard's more frenetic films, and with the the unique and vibrant use of colored lighting, a comparison to elements of Tarantino's Kill Bill is defiantly not out of place. The first half of the film is more on the restrained side, as Tetsu navigates a business deal gone bad and a murder involving his old yakuza boss, but once he hits the road to drift, the film really lets go and goes nuts. Suzuki also inserts a sly sense of humor throughout and packs in elements as far ranging as westerns, musicals and a subtle nod to slap-stick comedy. Once a brawl brawl broke out at a western style saloon, complete with a French stripper beating up American navy men, this film had me sold. While it's not without it's flaws, I'm looking forward to re-visiting this movie and will be looking into more of Seijen Suzuki's work. After this film, Suzuki went on to further alienate himself with the studio, pushing the limits of their patience until they eventually canned him for his "incomprehensibility."

FINAL VERDICT: This one isn't for everyone. I'm a bit of Japanese film junkie, so I'm far more inclined to enjoy and appreciate this, but if you can handle plot holes and some general craziness then check it out. Suzuki's work has influenced many gangster films since it's release and that alone might make it worth watching if your into looking into the past to see where some of your favorite films stole their style. Other then that, this one is going to appeal to a select group of people but you never know, something like this could open a door for you into the great world off 50's and 60's Japanese cinema.

The Passion Of Joan Of Arc (1928)

The Passion of Joan of Arc

Directed by: Carl Theodor Dreyer

Starring: Renée Jeanne Falconetti

Released: 1928

Country of Origin: France

Runtime: 110 min.

Often I find it's much more difficult to write about classic cinema then it is to cover modern works. Films like The Passion of Joan of Arc have been written about, talked about, and praised so much that finding something new or interesting to say about them is near impossible. So don't expect me to say anything profound or enlightening about this film. It's pretty much all been said before and probably worded far more eloquently. In fact, there is a good chance I'll often just regurgitate what other people have said. That being said, this film is gosh darn amazing.

The Passion of Joan of Arc is about the intense trail of, you guessed it, Joan Of Arc. It's a story just about everyone is familiar with, unless you're really sheltered or just ridiculously ignorant. So going into a lot of depth on plot is pointless. Joan is captured, endlessly interrogated and yelled at by super angry catholic people, and then burned at the stake. I'm going to be honest here, a film about Joan of Arc isn't all that appealing to me. If I'm going to pick a film to watch based purely on how interesting the story is to me, a movie based on historical events would not be one I'd choose. However, if all my viewings were based on personal interest in the story, I would have never seen many of my favorite films. I believe that one of the marks of a truly great director is the ability to make any story compelling and worth your time. Which is exactly the case with this film. I was engaged and glued to the screen for its entire run-time. For most film enthusiasts, there is no question that Dreyer was one of the greatest directors ever and possibly the single best of the silent film era. I have only seen two of his films including this one, but I'm sure I'll be fixing that sometime in the near future.

One of the most interesting and often disorienting aspects of the film is how it's shot and cut. Made up primarily of close-up shots, with complete disregard for any sort of establishing shots, Joan of Arc is an intimate and uncomfortable experience. Unlike most films which treat our brains to shots that give us a subconscious understanding of the environments in which the characters interact, this film refuses to allow us to see close to anything but facial expressions. This puts the viewer in such close proximity to its subjects that it creates a emotional bludgeoning effect that can be a little much for people used to a viewing diet primarily made up of modern American films. Even within the context of the silent films, this is a very different experience. Dreyer also refused to allow any sort of make-up on the actors, which with its extreme close-ups adds a level of realism that makes the film feel like, as director Jean Cocteau stated, "a historical document from an era in which the cinema didn't exist." Dreyer presents Joan of Arc in a light unlike most cinematic portrayals of the martyr. We are not shown a courageous warrior clad in armor, but instead a 19 years old girl who is terrified and faced with the conflict of either betraying her beliefs or being burned at the stake. To me, this seems like a far more honest and real presentation and makes the film punch just a little harder on the scale of emotional power.

No discussion of this film would be complete without talking about the absolutely powerful performance of Falconetti as Joan of Arc. It's one of those performances that gets endless praise and it's not without reason. I never seen so much said or expressed with mere facial expression, as she does in this film. Within a single shot there is often a myriad of complex emotions and thoughts and her ability to easily convey those to the viewer is truly a remarkable accomplishment. Dreyer has stated that with Falconetti, he found Joan of Arc reincarnated. Since this was her only film, its hard to imagine her as anything else besides Joan of Arc. While its sad that we aren't able to see this amazing actress in any other roles, it really makes this film something special. After watching this, any mention of Joan of Arc will bring up images from this classic that will burned into my mind forever.

FINAL VERDICT: I would say that this a film that any true fan of cinema should see at some point in their lifetime. However, I understand that many people today have a very hard time getting into and appreciating silent films. The lack of audible speech is something that takes a little more effort and concentration to fully absorb. If you're new to silent films, I'd check out some of the seminal works of Chaplin first. His films are a great gateway to the world of silent films, and City Lights would make a excellent starting point. If you like and are interested in that era of film making after that, give this one a try. Dreyer is not an easy director to "get," but is one that is well worth the effort it takes.