tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-64107650575451543732012-02-16T22:55:37.683-05:00But then the morning comes, and we turn back into pumpkins, right?Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.comBlogger941100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-59796101370874602112008-07-20T10:22:00.005-04:002008-07-21T19:04:27.737-04:00<a href="http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e291/bodbarnes/trees_lounge.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e291/bodbarnes/trees_lounge.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><div>I still can't stop thinking about <strong>Trees Lounge</strong> (1996). Steve Buscemi's directorial debut that he also wrote and stars in is a wonderful little slice of Americana that is both a poignant and heartfelt in its portrayal of a small town and the afflictions of alcoholism. There have been many films that depict alcoholism and Buscemi's film may just be one of the most honest accounts ever made since Blake Edward's <em>Days of Wine and Roses</em>. His minimalist style of filmmaking captures the miniscule details of everday life in this town and what seems to be irrelevant little moments in these characters lives become much more meaningful as the story progresses. Buscemi is naturally funny in anything he appears in (one look at him and I can't help but laugh) but in this film his familiar peculiar eccentricities clash with a plaintive melancholy that creates an interesting dichotomy; his character Tommy is an alcoholic loser that shouldn't receive any sort of reverence and yet it's difficult not to pity him. Tommy is someone that is easy to condescend to with mockery and there are plenty of very funny moments but Buscemi usually contrasts this with painful sorrow. At times it's difficult not to laugh at how pitiful his character is and then suddenly there will be a full reversal where you just want to give him a big hug and tell him everything's going to be "ok". Buscemi maintains a a casual pace to his film, letting the characters tell the story rather than implementing various plot devices. The film may be simple in its execution but remains purposeful. He tells a simple story and finds those common moments and emotions which we've all experienced and can connect with. He lets the moment breathe and the characters grow with the natural progression of the story. There are no strings here, no obvious mechanics. The high calibur of the craftsmanship is on full display throughout but the focus is on the people, the characters, the environment they inhabit and the shaping of their lives. Buscemi is more interested in creating genuine emotion through his characters and succeeds admirably. </div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-5979610137087460211?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-32118224173139776482008-07-20T10:18:00.004-04:002008-07-21T01:36:05.245-04:00For now. Let's seem how long it takes before I self-destruct and abandon this blog again. In preperation for a collaborative film journal with a friend from RT, I decided to take another stab at blogging again.<br /><div></div><br /><div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-3211822417313977648?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-53119243449688370252008-04-25T12:30:00.007-04:002008-04-25T12:43:30.651-04:00First off, I'd like to thank everyone for participating. Here are the final scores:<br /><br />Ana S. - 9 pts.<br />Juan F. - 8 pts<br />Chris M. - 8 pts.<br />Brian W. - 4pts.<br />John K. - 1pt pts.<br /><br />Congratz to Ana S. from British Columbia for answering the most correctly!!! She is the winner of a $25 gift certificate to Best Buy. For curiosities sake, here are the answers:<br /><br /><ol><li>Pleasantville</li><li>Clockers</li><li>The Big Red One</li><li>Ivan's Childhood</li><li>The Last Detail</li><li>Through a Glass Darkly</li><li>Death Trance </li><li>Funky Forest: The First Contact</li><li>Persona</li><li>The Odd Couple</li></ol><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-5311924344968837025?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-56933064305652192472008-04-23T11:03:00.003-04:002008-04-23T13:04:14.654-04:00<a href="http://bp2.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/SA9QGDH5AVI/AAAAAAAAAIM/6k55WJb3380/s1600-h/vlcsnap-4899588.png"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5192456960229310802" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/SA9QGDH5AVI/AAAAAAAAAIM/6k55WJb3380/s400/vlcsnap-4899588.png" border="0" /></a> Click image to enlarge. Remember to email me your answers to <a href="mailto:lemonzreviews@hotmail.com">lemonzreviews@hotmail.com</a><br /><div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-5693306430565219247?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-21659972814974626032008-04-22T11:20:00.003-04:002008-04-22T11:22:31.454-04:00<a href="http://bp2.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/SA4CiTH5AUI/AAAAAAAAAIE/-oeFGIDnBE8/s1600-h/screenshot9.png"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5192090208676938050" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/SA4CiTH5AUI/AAAAAAAAAIE/-oeFGIDnBE8/s400/screenshot9.png" border="0" /></a> Click image to enlarge. Remember to email me your answers to <a href="mailto:lemonzreviews@hotmail.com">lemonzreviews@hotmail.com</a><br /><div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-2165997281497462603?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-36982436922492415212008-04-18T11:30:00.002-04:002008-04-18T11:33:57.048-04:00<a href="http://bp1.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/SAi_WDbj7-I/AAAAAAAAAH8/aptcS88M71Q/s1600-h/screenshot8.png"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5190608956143431650" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/SAi_WDbj7-I/AAAAAAAAAH8/aptcS88M71Q/s400/screenshot8.png" border="0" /></a> Click image to enlarge. Remember to email me your answers to <a href="mailto:lemonzreviews@hotmail.com">lemonzreviews@hotmail.com</a><br /><div><br /><br /><div></div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-3698243692249241521?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-54591599529481942572008-04-16T11:33:00.003-04:002008-04-16T11:36:43.372-04:00<a href="http://bp1.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/SAYc8jbj78I/AAAAAAAAAHs/tFqnBb1ujFs/s1600-h/screenshot7.png"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5189867447219646402" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/SAYc8jbj78I/AAAAAAAAAHs/tFqnBb1ujFs/s400/screenshot7.png" border="0" /></a> Click image to enlarge. Remember to email me your answers to <a href="mailto:lemonzreviews@hotmail.com">lemonzreviews@hotmail.com</a><br /><div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-5459159952948194257?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-24908240630154925622008-04-15T10:26:00.002-04:002008-04-15T10:28:46.047-04:00<a href="http://bp0.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/SAS7gzbj77I/AAAAAAAAAHk/2nw-qgWWWrg/s1600-h/screenshot6.png"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5189478842873671602" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp0.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/SAS7gzbj77I/AAAAAAAAAHk/2nw-qgWWWrg/s400/screenshot6.png" border="0" /></a> Click image to enlarge. Remember to email me your answers to <a href="mailto:lemonzreviews@hotmail.com">lemonzreviews@hotmail.com</a><br /><div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-2490824063015492562?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-52191837063303350982008-04-13T09:22:00.003-04:002008-04-13T09:33:08.089-04:00<a href="http://bp3.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/SAILgDbj76I/AAAAAAAAAHc/NbSFtepic2U/s1600-h/Screenshot5.png"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5188722365988859810" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/SAILgDbj76I/AAAAAAAAAHc/NbSFtepic2U/s400/Screenshot5.png" border="0" /></a> Click image to enlarge. Remember to email me your answers to <a href="mailto:lemonzreviews@hotmail.com">lemonzreviews@hotmail.com</a><br /><div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-5219183706330335098?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-1962469134470110592008-04-12T17:42:00.003-04:002008-04-12T17:45:36.329-04:00<a href="http://bp2.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/SAEtVDbj75I/AAAAAAAAAHU/kGmOghSlSsY/s1600-h/Screenshot%234.png"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5188478085428932498" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/SAEtVDbj75I/AAAAAAAAAHU/kGmOghSlSsY/s400/Screenshot%234.png" border="0" /></a> Click image to enlarge. Remember to email me your answers to <a href="mailto:lemonzreviews@hotmail.com">lemonzreviews@hotmail.com</a><br /><div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-196246913447011059?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-32929108695378742172008-04-11T12:01:00.003-04:002008-04-11T12:55:25.378-04:00<a href="http://bp2.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R_-Oqwf-LBI/AAAAAAAAAHM/5Ew3sto4ouo/s1600-h/screenshot3.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5188022160978750482" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R_-Oqwf-LBI/AAAAAAAAAHM/5Ew3sto4ouo/s400/screenshot3.jpg" border="0" /></a> Click image to enlarge. Remember to email me your answers to <a href="mailto:lemonzreviews@hotmail.com">lemonzreviews@hotmail.com</a><br /><div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-3292910869537874217?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-23537074730559446052008-04-10T22:59:00.005-04:002008-04-11T12:55:16.219-04:00<a href="http://bp3.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R_7U_Qf-LAI/AAAAAAAAAHE/PllhdsQFkBs/s1600-h/screenshot2.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5187818004003302402" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R_7U_Qf-LAI/AAAAAAAAAHE/PllhdsQFkBs/s400/screenshot2.jpg" border="0" /></a> Click image to enlarge. Remember to email me your answers to <a href="mailto:lemonzreviews@hotmail.com">lemonzreviews@hotmail.com</a><br /><div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-2353707473055944605?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-46411828577511846132008-04-08T16:15:00.007-04:002008-04-11T12:55:06.361-04:00<a href="http://bp1.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R_vXsngWWSI/AAAAAAAAAG8/IFZlgkdZ2Do/s1600-h/screenshot1.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5186976557366139170" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R_vXsngWWSI/AAAAAAAAAG8/IFZlgkdZ2Do/s400/screenshot1.jpg" border="0" /></a>Click image to enlarge. Remember to email me your answers to <a href="mailto:lemonzreviews@hotmail.com">lemonzreviews@hotmail.com</a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-4641182857751184613?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-39463550672455521292008-04-07T16:39:00.005-04:002008-04-07T17:24:02.574-04:00<a href="http://trashotron.com/agony/images/2006/06-news/03-06-06/moore-dirty_job.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 200px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://trashotron.com/agony/images/2006/06-news/03-06-06/moore-dirty_job.jpg" border="0" /></a>Not as funny or evocative as the critics on the back-cover suggest. Moore has a wacky imagination and is an excellent writer capable of tacking serious issues (in the case of this book, death with a capital "D") with a warped type of macabre humor that is side-splittingly perverse. With his latest offering "A Dirty Job", Moore slightly misses the mark on trying to eschew the ominous and gloominess of dealing with death by taking an absurdly comedic approach that is far too uneven. At times the humor does work but the majority of the time Moore's typical silliness falls flat and becomes tiresome starting around the half-way point. The last act is rushed and unsatisfying leaving nothing particularly thought-provoking to mull over. Many would argue that Moore's books are supposed to be nothing more than hilarious bizarre tales that don't aim to be enlightening or contain depth. This is where I would strongly disagree especially if you take a closer inspection at some of his previous novels such as "Lamb" (a perfect example of his ability to balance humor with erudite controversial subject matter). This novel lacked the effectively potent humor and profundity I have come to expect from him.<br /><br /><strong>[**]</strong><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-3946355067245552129?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-47693887098477948092008-04-06T21:04:00.007-04:002008-04-08T16:09:15.531-04:00<a href="http://www.wfscstamps.org/images/Trivia.gif"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.wfscstamps.org/images/Trivia.gif" border="0" /></a><br /><div></div><br /><div>I'll be posting a bunch random screenshots throughout the month of April and whoever answers the most correctly at the end will win a DVD Prize or an $25 Best Buy gift certificate. Send your answers via email: <a href="mailto:Lemonzreviews@hotmail.com">Lemonzreviews@hotmail.com</a>. Good luck everyone!</div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-4769388709847794809?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-11657812813053542212008-04-02T21:58:00.012-04:002008-04-03T00:10:00.484-04:00<a href="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1573223026.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1573223026.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>What makes life worth living? This is the fundamental question of Nick Hornby's "<strong>A Long Way Down</strong>" that is instigated by the attempted comical suicide of four strangers who coincidentally pick the same block tower to jump off of on New Year's Eve. This is definitely one of the quickest reads in recent memory and much of that has to do with Nick Hornby's swiftly elegant writing style, snappy dialogue and natural story-telling voice. He is one of my favorite authors with <em>High Fidelity</em> and <em>About a Boy</em> being two of the best novels I have read in my entire life so suffice it to say, my expectations were exceedingly high. It was naive of me to think that Hornby would be able to top himself with his latest work and while it wasn't a bad book by any means it definitely didn't resonate with me as much as I initially hoped it would. Perhaps I was expecting something a little more inspirational or profound (after all, his novel is about suicide and what makes life worth living) and it was niether. However, the greatest strength of this novel is that Hornby manages to be add a refreshing sense of humor to the gloomy subject matter and use it cleverly to expose the selfishly ridiculousness of committing such an act. I applaud Hornby for staying away from any kind of cliched redemption for his flawed characters and taking a more realistic approach that is funny as much as it is serious. If only the novel contained a little more depth instead of providing the obvious sentiments regarding suicide it would have truely reached a level of greatness. Fans of Hornby's previous novels should find it engaging but for newcomers to his work I wouldn't suggest this book as a good starting place.<br /><br /></div><div><span style="color:#ffffff;"><strong>[***]</strong></span></div><div></div><div></div><div><br />It won't be long before some Hollywood studio purchases the rights to adapt this novel so for my own amusement I thought it would be interesting to cast who should star in the leading roles.</div><br /><br />Clive Owen as <em>Martin Sharp</em><br /><br />James McAvoy as <em>JJ</em><br /><em></em><br />Imelda Staunton as <em>Maureen</em><br /><br />Emma Watson <em>as Jess</em><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-1165781281305354221?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-73835673619942767542008-03-31T14:52:00.003-04:002008-03-31T15:58:51.760-04:00<a href="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/043999358X.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/043999358X.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><div>Two down, 48 more to go. I had started reading this book about a year ago and put it down after getting close to about half-way through. It simply wasn't engaging and I found myself easily distracted. Picking it up again, it became clear that my initial problems with it were very much the same although this time around I seemed a lot more tolerant. <em>The Amber Spyglass </em>pales drastically in comparison to the first two novels of the trilogy bringing an unsatisfying conclusion to what was shaping up to be one of the best of the fantasy genre.</div><br /><div><strong>The Bad:</strong></div><br /><div>- uneven pacing: The story wasn't as thoroughly compelling as the previous novels where Pullman gets too caught up on description, description, description. The sub-plots that didn't focus on Lyra and Will's journey were dull and frivolous. </div><br /><div>- Lyra's transformation from child to adult isn't believable and feels forced. Her "growing pains" are mishandled and she comes off as this annoying, insufferable girl who I just wanted to slap everytime she opened her mouth to speak or went through one of her emotional mood swings. Her precocious sweet-natured innocence present in the first two books was what I found appealing about her character. I understand that this book was intended to illustrate her maturity but it felt rushed and at times ridiculously lame. <strong>SPOILERS: </strong>Was it really necessary to have Lyra and Will have sex (they are only 13 for goodness sake!) to portray that she has now entered womanhood?</div><br /><div>- Deus ex Machina: People complain about this in the Harry Potter series but at least Rowling didn't overuse it and actually gives plausible reasons for such occurences. Whenever Lyra or Will find themselves in peril they always manage to escape with the help or others or some chance occurance that doesn't make much sense. This really kills the suspense.</div><br /><div>- Disappointing climax: The entire series was building up towards the battle between Lord Asriel's army and the angels of Heaven which I expected to be one of the most exciting confrontations. Alas, this was not meant to be. For such an epic war it was surprisingly short and unimpressive. Yawn.</div><br /><br /><div><strong>The Good:</strong></div><br /><div>- Pullman's excellent writing style. The man knows how to tell a story. Unfortunately, with this third book the results are less than satisfactory. He still manages to create such a tangible universe full of interesting people and creatures.</div><br /><div>- Not preachy in his religious views. He doesn't condemn the Catholic faith in so much as he exposes its flaws and asks the reader form his/her own beliefs.</div><br /><div>Overall, I was glad to finish the series and would still recommend this fantasy trilogy to children and adults despite my lukewarm reactions here.</div><br /><br /><div></div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-7383567361994276754?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-3276279766030453292008-03-28T09:55:00.012-04:002008-03-30T18:57:38.843-04:00<a href="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0385504470.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0385504470.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>Lullaby marks my first venture into the dark twisted world of Chuck Palahniuk who has taken on cult status over the last 10 years or so providing his readers with effervescent bizzare fables usually with strong social commentary (which is where the comparisons to Vonnegut come in) and a crude sense of humor. The plot in this book is as strange as they come taking on elements of the fantasmic involving a children's book of poems that when read outloud or even thought of has the power to kill anyone instantly. The protagonist is a journalist reporter investigating crib deaths who ends up forming a relationship with a real estate agent who sells haunted houses. Along with her secretary and boyfriend who are well versed in wiccan religion, they all set off on a road trip across America to trackdown these books of poems to destroy them. With such an interesting premise, Palahniuk spends too much time on nihilistic rants of contemporary society from mass media brainwashing to the apocalypse rather than the actual story. That isn't to say the story is shoved aside entirely for the sake of self-conscious ramblings. It just feels slightly rushed and only starts to get interesting once the climax arrives. This is a quick read that was thoroughly entertaining and although it didn't really leave much of an impression I'd still recommend it as an excellent piece of edgy post-modern literature that tackles some controversial subject matter in a cynical imaginative way. </div><div><br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ffffff;">[***]</span></strong></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-327627976603045329?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-78059283271291185922008-03-26T09:54:00.004-04:002008-03-26T10:00:06.794-04:00<div align="center"><a href="http://www.axelmusic.com/resources/covers/7/717951001559.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.axelmusic.com/resources/covers/7/717951001559.jpg" border="0" /></a> and<br /></div><div align="center"><a href="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0783236476.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0783236476.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg" border="0" /></a></div><br /><div align="center"></div>Picked both of these up for a 2/$20 at HMV. I have seen the Woody Allen film several times and it remains one of his best from the 90's. <strong>Buffalo '66</strong> was a complete blind-purchase and I have never seen anything by Gallo before. It has Christinni Ricci so that was enough to give it the benefit of the doubt. How would you rate these two?<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-7805928327129118592?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-77860201295982513652008-03-25T14:39:00.004-04:002008-03-25T16:47:59.491-04:00<a href="http://bp2.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R-lHFXgWWKI/AAAAAAAAAFo/JMzwZAVNZH0/s1600-h/Fresh.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5181751003801082018" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R-lHFXgWWKI/AAAAAAAAAFo/JMzwZAVNZH0/s400/Fresh.jpg" border="0" /></a>Part coming of age story and uncompromising social commentary regarding disenchanted youth growing up in the Bronx, Boaz Yakin’s <strong>Fresh</strong> eschews the cliché ridden faux-sentimentality of life in the ghetto – first and foremost opting to tell a compelling story with characters that don’t fall into the trap of stereotypes whilst providing a powerful message on the importance of family and the social injustices of impoverished communities. Yakin stresses the personal and political change necessary to put an end to the bloodshed and immoral atrocities rampant in these downtrodden places where government institutions are scarcely provided. Above all else, education is the key to positive change.<br /><br />What stands out in a film like this that deals with subject matter that has been covered time and time again is that the characters come across as real people with complex emotions and depth. Even the murderers and thugs aren’t just mere cardboard cut-outs of familiar gangster-type associations; the way they communicate or react to certain situations reveals much about their personalities. Take Esteban (Giancarlo Esposito) for instance who is a big-time drug dealer that our 12 year old protagonist Michael (Sean Nelson) or Fresh as he is more commonly referred to works for as a drug pusher in the streets of Harlem. Esteban is a family man and not the familiar strung-out mean-spirited criminal that only cares about money even though he is driven by greed and prone to intimidating bursts of rage as complications surface in the drug-trade. He holds loyalty and truthfulness in high esteem and even goes out of his way to treat Fresh like his own son. Esteban may not be the most decent man to be around but he is a man of principles and it’s refreshing to see a crime-lord with some semblance of humanity. Another refreshing aspect is that Yakin doesn’t pigeonhole his characters as “good” or “bad”. The streets are a war zone where drugs, violence and prostitution are rampant. The struggle for survival in such a hostile environment plagues these people especially Fresh who wants nothing more than to save enough money and escape the hustling street life before it’s too late. With minimal government support, these poor souls are left with very few options to make an honest living and continually get roped into this dangerous lifestyle so who are we to judge? The youth is the most vulnerable to corruption and Yakin emphatically points out that education is something that needs to be reinforced in these young children who are falling victim to this perilous lifestyle since they don’t know any better. Until the government decides to put forth the effort to intervene this is a problem that is not going to be resolved anytime soon.<br /><br />In what is probably the most overlooked child performance of the 90’s or possibly ever, Sean Nelson is spellbinding in the title role and carries the entire film. The emotional range and his ability to portray Fresh as an smart kid that is exceedingly clever without coming off as too precocious is nothing short of masterful. It is a shame that Sean Nelson’s career never really took off after this film and if the heart-wrenching final scene is any indication, this young man showed incredible talent at such a young age. Fresh may be young but living in these conditions has forced him to grow up quickly even though he is still just a kid at heart. The awkwardness of his school-yard crush showcases Nelson at the top of his game; completely in control of his character by switching from his normal rigid imperviousness to a kid unsure of how to approach the situation. The film wears its heart on its sleeve and relies on Nelson’s genuine performance in order to effectively portray its themes and ideas. Fresh has to maintain a firm assertiveness so as to not show weakness because of the sordid work that he does even though deep inside he is terrified and filled with anguish. His relationship with his alcoholic father (Samuel L. Jackson), a skilled chess player who spends most of his time in the park drinking from a brown paper-bag and playing the game is the emotional core of the film. Chess is a game of strategy and during these visits, Fresh’s father offers him advice on the game but looking closer at the dialogue, it soon becomes clear that these are valuable life lessons that he is giving his son. The chess lessons also help to influence the way Fresh cunningly decides to outsmart his opponents which of course are the drug-dealers he sells dope for. The way he goes about doing this is incredibly suspenseful that is intricately thought out making the plot exhilarating to watch unfold. Even though the film can be grueling to watch at times because of how unflinching the violence is depicted, the raw authenticity of the script, perfect pacing, and wonderfully drawn characters makes it difficult to turn away. This film is leaps and bounds ahead of all those other films dealing with similar subject matter because it actually has something positive to say and goes about doing so in a thought-provoking and intelligent manner.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-7786020129598251365?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-6827061748337433602008-03-19T11:59:00.008-04:002008-03-22T18:50:54.447-04:00<a href="http://www.whatdvd.net/WhatDVD-Graphics/main/441.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.whatdvd.net/WhatDVD-Graphics/main/441.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div align="center"><strong>Renee Zellwegger</strong></div><div align="center">as</div><div align="center"><em>Bridget Jones</em></div><div align="center">in</div><div align="center"><strong>Bridget Jones's Diary</strong></div><br />Here is where I more than likely lose most of you who have been following my list. Similar to Miranda July, Zellwegger seems like an obscure pick among the A-list power-house performances and her current ranking position may seem questionable but she really is deserving of such adoration. She brings to life one of the most relatable female characters I have ever come across in cinema with humor, sharp wit, gentle warmth and a social awkwardness that makes her completely adorable. Single, plump, pushing 40 and desperate to find a man, Bridget Jones isn’t your typical bombshell beauty typically found in these kind of romantic comedies. It’s refreshing to have a female heroine who is relatably flawed and yet completely sexy by her intellectualism and personality rather than plain looks. Zellwegger was born for this role and immerses herself completely in the role (she even packed on a lot of extra weight for it), brings a level of genuine earnestness to her character that just rings true. Bridget would be the kind of girl I could see myself falling in love with.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-682706174833743360?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-25575607937534951452008-03-18T12:52:00.003-04:002008-03-18T13:15:09.662-04:00For those few who actually read my blog, you may notice that it looks a little different. A sort of spur of the moment decision, I've gone with a whole new different layout and color scheme that is a little less oppressive than my original template which was a hard on the eyes. So, do you like my new look or should I abandon it?<br /><br />Oh, and I also bought three films this afternoon:<br /><br />- <em>La Vie En Rose</em>: After Marion Cotillard pulled a major upset at the Academy awards by winning best actress I just had to see for myself if her performance was worthy of such adoration.<br /><br />- <em>Once</em>: I'm hoping that a re-watch will convince me that my initial vitriolic response towards it was all wrong.<br /><br />- <em>Sunshine</em>: One of my favorites of 2007. I just had to own it.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-2557560793753495145?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-10865786897584521202008-03-17T11:22:00.010-04:002008-03-17T17:26:22.208-04:00<a href="http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/critics/blog/potter.JPG"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/critics/blog/potter.JPG" border="0" /></a><br /><div>It's semi-old news but it goes without question that this is one of the biggest stories to break in the Harry Potter universe. Let's face it: With the completion and successful release of Book seven last year, Potter related news has been slow or otherwise painfully banal. The construction of a Potter theme park? Bah, who cares. At long last, we have something fans can get excited about. WB released an official statement on March 12 confirming that movie seven would indeed be split into two parts after rumors began surfacing months ago. This creates an interesting dilemma for the most successful franchise of all time since the bar has been set considerably higher for them to finally do the books justice and if it is not pulled of successfully it could mean disaster. The producer David Heyman was quoted as saying in the LA Times that <em>"I swear to you it was born out of purely creative reasons," Heyman said during an interview in a converted airplane factory outside London that has been home base to all of the "Potter" productions. "Unlike every other book, you cannot remove elements of this book. You can remove scenes of Ron playing quidditch from the fifth book, and you can remove Hermione and S.P.E.W. [Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare] and those subplots . . . but with the seventh, that can't be done."</em></div><br /><div>That may be all fine and dandy Mr. Heyman although it's diffcult for me to fully embrace this decision since it does feel like a marketing strategy to milk the franchise for everything it's worth since there will be no more Potter films after this one. Why wasn't the decision to split <strong><em>Goblet of Fire</em></strong> or <strong><em>Order of the Phoenix</em></strong> ever followed through? The latter is the longest book in the series and yet you decided to make it the shortest film in the series by massively excluding various plot lines/characters that are integral to the story. That sure makes a whole lot of sense. </div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><br />My two cents is that right from the get-go, Warner Brothers should have gone the <strong>Lord of the Rings </strong>route by releasing both the theatrical version (with a slightly longer running times that don't rush the story) and an extended version. That way there would be less pressure once <strong><em>Deathly Hallows</em></strong> is released and everyone wins. It would help to satisfy the hardcore Harry Potter fans and for those who haven't read the books but go to see the movies will at least have a more thorough understanding of what is going on. The main problem with these films is that they focus on time constraints rather than the actual story. Now, WB realizes that this past mistake is going to bite them in the arse because of how the previous six books build up towards <strong><em>Deathly Hallows</em></strong> and since they decided it would be wise to overlook the importance of Rowling's story, they now have to fill in the missing gaps. They could rise up the challange and manage to pull it off except this creates another problem: Where do you make the split and retain continuity without alienating the audience? It is interesting to note that both parts will be released six months apart. During this time will Part 1 be released on DVD to get people excited to go and see Part 2? If not, excitement will dwindle and there is the possibility that many will lose interest. WB may have good intentions to finally do the books justice but splitting it into two parts puts the narrative in jeopardy. Wouldn't it make more sense to release a three and a half hour movie instead without a disruption of the story-telling act structure. There could even be an intermission. Presumably, the first part will lack a satisfying climax unless they come up with some ingenious way of leaving a cliff-hanger because of the way the book is structured. The first half deals with Harry's learning of the Horcruxes which means that it will more than likely be many scenes of exposition. The second part involves Harry taking action and the climactic battle at Hogwarts. There lies the dilemma. How are they going to pull it off successfully without hurting the narrative? I suppose we are going to have to wait and see. Any thoughts on this?</div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-1086578689758452120?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-6518546137108821982008-03-12T22:42:00.004-04:002008-03-12T23:05:47.522-04:00<p align="center"><a href="http://www.ghostdroppings.com/images/photodroppings/dcdcd.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.ghostdroppings.com/images/photodroppings/dcdcd.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;"> Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis looking a lot slimmer as the Ghostbusters.</span><br /><em></em></p><p><em>“We've been going about this all wrong, this Mr. Stay Puft's okay, he's a sailor, he's in New York, we get this guy laid we won't have any trouble.”</em><br /><br />Here we have what I consider to be one of the best comedies to come out of the 1980’s. With a great cast including Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd, Harold Ramis, Sigourney Weaver and Rick Moranis, there is non-stop laughs sprinkled with thrills. It may just be the nostalgia factor, but this was one of the defining films of my childhood and I find myself enjoying it even more so today. Before <strong><em>Ghostbusters</em></strong> was released as a motion-picture, there was the hit cartoon show that I remember getting up extra early to watch and the cool action-figures. According to my parents, this was the first film that we owned on VHS and apparently, I would watch it on a regular basis. I clearly remember getting frightened during some of the sequences especially the beginning with the ghost in the library. Even today, this scene still manages to make me jump as the three professors investigate a disturbance in the lower level of the facility. As a kid, I was mainly interested in the action and the ion blasters that the <strong>Ghostbusters </strong>use to capture the ghosts. Not to mention, the film also scared the hell out of me even though it is more of a comedy. Plenty of the humor, jokes and underlying social themes flew right over my head when I was younger but now I can appreciate it more.<br /><br />The comedic premise has always interested to me. Three University science professors start up their own business of catching ghosts, ghouls, monsters and other supernatural beings that just happen to be terrorizing New York City. Unfortunately for them, demons from another world have no entered the realm of Earth and are launching an assault on the Big Apple. Who can forget that mischief making green ghost named Slimer, or the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man? The collectible figurine of the latter still rests on my shelf to this day. With New Yorkers in a state of panic, who will they turn to for help? Well, as the catchy theme song goes, “Who, you gonna call? Ghost Busters!”<br /><br />The special effects seem a bit dated but it is all campy fun. The script is sharp and funny providing lots of memorable dialogue. It takes on a rather sarcastic tone and works perfectly to Bill Murray’s advantage since he specializes in dry humor. For instance, one of the funniest lines in the entire film is delivered by Murray: “It’s official. This man has no dick.” His performance Venkman is also one of the best roles of his career. The film is obviously a collaboration of great actors but it’s really Bill Murray who is the star here. Sigourney Weaver plays his love interest and even though many would disagree with me, I don’t think she has ever looked sexier than in her role here as Dana Barrett, the woman whom the evil forces have an interest in. Special mention also needs to go to Rick Moranis who provides a belly full of laughs as the neurotic little dweeb who is infatuated with Weaver’s character. His encounter with the scary-looking demon dog is hilarious and even though it is a small role, it is probably his best performances. Let’s be realistic here, his career has been rather shaky and he tends to star in mediocre or just downright terrible films (The Flintstones, Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, etc). This is one performance he should be remembered for alongside Darth Helmet in Mel Brook’s Spaceballs.<br /><br />If you are looking for a great comedy, action, or thrills and chills, you can’t go wrong with this film. This is big-blockbuster entertainment at its best. Mixing elements of horror, action and humor with a vast array of comedic talent, <strong>Ghost Busters</strong> is a blast and a definite 80’s classic.</p><p><em>(This review was written on January 3rd, 2004)</em></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-651854613710882198?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com88tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-63291849601718393572008-03-12T22:38:00.004-04:002008-03-12T22:41:35.675-04:00<a href="http://bp0.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R9iT2-2b4iI/AAAAAAAAAD0/e17HfC7YpP8/s1600-h/eyeswideshut.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5177050344455922210" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp0.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R9iT2-2b4iI/AAAAAAAAAD0/e17HfC7YpP8/s400/eyeswideshut.jpg" border="0" /></a>Another cut-and-paste <a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2007/08/eyes-wide-shut-kubrick-1999.html">review</a>.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-6329184960171839357?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-31907652612283561532008-03-05T11:44:00.002-05:002008-03-05T11:48:46.007-05:00<a href="http://bp1.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R87OlqsHjPI/AAAAAAAAADs/2G5Ez5C3cqk/s1600-h/JohnnyGuitar.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5174300168405093618" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R87OlqsHjPI/AAAAAAAAADs/2G5Ez5C3cqk/s400/JohnnyGuitar.jpg" border="0" /></a> <em>Down there I sell whiskey and cards. All you can buy up these stairs is a bullet in the head. Now which do you want?</em><br /><br />Having seen this film on DVD and a restored 35mm print, I’ve come to the conclusion that in order to experience the full effect of Ray’s vision is to watch it on the big screen. Either that or someone needs to release a better version of it on DVD since the current version that is out now simply does not do the film justice. Taking full advantage of CinemaScope with a tapestry of elaborate color schemes that seem almost irreverently crude, Ray is able to maximize the amount of space in the frame; his sets are cluttered and pervasively cumbersome. He has a tendency to shoot many scenes where a large group of people fill up the screen. The outdoor scenes are overly bright and expansive.<br /><br />Joan Crawford’s Vienna in Nicholas Ray’s incendiary Western is one of domineering strength and unbridled determination. She is one of the rare female heroines of the genre that isn’t a harlot or controlled by male ascendancy. The swapping of gender-roles makes for a much more complex and introspective character study opposed to the standard archetypal characterizations adopted by the genre. It’s refreshing to finally come across a female protagonist in a Western with nerve and independence capable of making the rules. Taken at face value, it is an entertaining little Western that masquerades as cautionary tale towards industrialization laced with gunslingers, outlaws, bursts of violence and romance. This is only scratching the surface since what makes the film so fascinating is its evocative portrayal of femininity and its rebel spirit permeating just below the surface. More importantly, the film has a hidden political agenda and is actually a scathing assault on McCarthyism with particular emphasis on the importance of democracy. The local town authorities have become highly suspicious of a group of so-called “troublemakers” and are ruthless in pinpointing the blame on them for a supposed bank-car robbery.<br /><br />Vienna owns a saloon, hoping to cash in when the railroad comes through. This is much to the disapproval of the local authorities led by a mean-spirited Sheriff and a malicious woman named Emma (Mercedes MacCambridge) who has a personal vendetta against Vienna that is far more complex than the film initially alludes to making for a fascinating character study of the two women. Vienna also happens to be friends with Dancing Kid and his posse who frequent her saloon. Since this group of individuals fails to conform to the established principles upheld by this community, it seems a safe bet according to the authorities to use them as a scapegoat. Enter Johnny Guitar (Sterling Hayden) who comes to town hired by Vienna to work in her saloon as a musician. What follows I dare not reveal only that Ray serves up plenty of melodrama as a way of accentuating the sexual politics on display. The title of the film is ironic in the sense that Johnny isn’t the main character of the film at all whose role is to merely highlight Vivian’s sexual control. The final showdown is unique in that it is between two dominant bad-ass women (Vienna vs. Emma) where the men are powerless to intervene – a true cinematic moment for feminists everywhere to rejoice in.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-3190765261228356153?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-44079406354156315852008-03-03T16:15:00.003-05:002008-03-03T16:26:35.755-05:00<div align="center"><a href="http://gothamist.com/images/2003_7_azkaban.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://gothamist.com/images/2003_7_azkaban.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;">Harry Potter (Daniel Radclife) gets a little close with Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) in the "Forbidden Forest."</span></div><p><span style="font-size:100%;"></span> </p><p><span style="font-size:100%;">Hold the phone. Why the hell is a Harry Potter film appearing on a top 100 list? Before suggesting that I am clinically insane (which you would probably be partially correct) let me try to explain. This is a very personal list and don’t I expect many to agree with my selections. In order to narrow it down, the re-watchability factor played a significant role and it just so happens that I have seen the Potter films more times than any other film, even Star Wars. I’m not ashamed in expressing my absolutely love for everything Harry Potter. As a rabid fan-boy of J.K. Rowling’s books, it would be dishonest not to include at least one of the of film adaptations especially when the third installment is a visually exceptional film.<br /><br />Just because I may be overly bias doesn’t mean that the inherent flaws can be ignored. The plot-holes are numerous, a lot of key story-material was cut or rushed over, some technical errors are slightly distracting and the acting is a little rough around the edges (albeit a major improvement over the first two films) but these slight distractions are not enough to overshadow Cuaron’s unique vision of capturing the imaginative wonder of the source material while at the same time, adding his own artistic creativity. To give credit where credit is due, the insipid offerings by Columbus were the most loyal to the books but were so painfully dull. Entertaining as both pictures were, they felt over-stuffed; unable to fully encapsulate Rowling’s universe. Cuaron takes the Potter franchise to a whole new level of artistic achievement that has yet to be equaled by his successors Mike Newell and David Yates.<br /><br />My hat goes off to Cuaron for not merely doing a page-by-page adaptation and instead focusing on the development of the three characters as they experience the growing pains of adolescence. Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) has to face unspeakable evil in the outside world; that much is obvious. As threatening as his opposing forces may be, Cuaron is much more interested in Harry’s internal struggles as he comes to terms with his past and his identity. Learning from the mistakes of Columbus and building upon the universe which was previously created, Cuaron is able to shift his attention away from just mere spectacle to a more character driven story fleshing out the trio (as all the hip kids call them these days) in the process. Their personalities are becoming more distinct and the close friendship they share becomes even more vital. They are teenagers now going through the motions and discovering their own sexuality. All of the sexual subtle innuendos and phallic imagery Cuaron employs throughout the film seem innocent upon first glance but don’t be deceived. Take the beginning scene for instance, which has Harry practicing magic with his wand under his bed sheets at night. What about Ron’s comment to Neville about “stroking it”? Cuaron really pushes the limits of the PG-rating with this film.<br /><br />The brooding atmosphere, shadowy camera angles and ominous imagery bring a level of maturity as the story of Harry’s life grows darker. Before returning to his third year of Hogwarts, he nearly gets suspended for taking out his anger on his Aunt Marge with hilarious consequences. There’s also an escaped convict on the loose named Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) who was a close follower of Voldemort and apparently wants his head on a platter. Oh, and don’t forget the cloaked specters known as Dementors who suck the souls out of people. There is such a radical change in the level of growing darkness in comparison to the first two films here and yet, there is still humor to be found. Rowling’s novels always have a great sense of humor no mater how gloomy or chaotic the situation. <strong><em>Order of the Phoenix</em></strong> director David Yates can take a lesson from Cuaron in balancing humor with all the drama and horrors that befall the boy wizard.<br /><br />Full of sparkling vivid imagery, Cuaron uses images to tell the story and no other film in the series thus far has managed to equal or surpass its visual splendor. It’s about time we got a Harry Potter film that can be considered cinematic. With a vast improvement in CGI over the last few films, he is given the opportunity to flex his creative muscles. Using the Whomping Willow tree to indicate the change in seasons, zooming through the moving gears of the giant clock in the tower or making Harry’s flight on the Hippogriff the most magical scene in the entire series; every frame is just beautifully crafted.<br /><br /><strong><em>The Prisoner of Azkaban</em></strong> finally delivers as close as we can hope for in a Harry Potter adaptation balancing all the disparate elements in Rowling’s work that makes it so fascinating to read. The wonderfully drawn characters, the intriguing story-line, the humor, the imaginative wonder, the thrilling action, it’s all here. Even though hardcore Potter fans know the story inside out, there are still plenty surprises to be found here too. Let’s just hope WB decides to bring Cuaron back for Deathly Hallows because that is a book which desperately needs his creative talent to give it justice.</span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-4407940635415631585?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-17752963707348301552008-03-03T16:04:00.002-05:002008-03-03T16:09:20.270-05:00<img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5173624855158985378" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R8xoZQziEqI/AAAAAAAAADk/x8TIqReJ5Bg/s400/Interiors.jpg" border="0" /><br /><div>Made in between <strong><em>Annie Hall</em></strong> and <em><strong>Manhattan</strong></em>, it’s no surprise that <strong><em>Interiors</em></strong> is a profoundly forgotten work by Woody Allen. Rarely is it ever brought up when discussing the director’s best films and while not the most underrated in his oeuvre, it has failed to receive the recognition it deserves. Oscillating between Bergman homage and familiar Allen eccentricities, the end result is a mature piece of filmmaking distinct in itself. Purposefully clinical and sterile with particular emphasis on soft-lighting to create a cold entrapped environment, it’s as if characters from Allen’s macrocosm have been transported directly into a Bergman film. What could have easily become a precarious facsimile of the Swedish director’s craft, Allen is wise enough to intrinsically stay true to his self while offering a paean to his cinematic hero. </div><br /><div><strong><em>Interiors </em></strong>marks Woody Allen’s first venture into “serious mode” where he abandons the witty humor entirely for the sake of intense melodrama. The film itself is relentlessly bleak; almost lifeless at times. The shot compositions and mise-en-scene take on a hollowness quality; the interior settings drained of veracity reflecting the vapidity of their lives and feelings towards one another. Allen frames his shots with a lot of empty space, positioning his actors where they appear to be suppressed by their environment. Gordon Willis’ exquisite cinematography and lighting techniques perfectly contrast Allen’s imperturbable technique especially during the scenes that take place outside of the somber interiors of the beach house in the Hamptons where the film pre-dominantly takes place. The story centers upon a wealthy family consisting of three sisters Renata (Diane Keaton), Joey (Mary Beth Hurt) and Flynn (Kristen Griffith) as they each try to cope with the divorce of their parents who had been married for over 25 years. Eve is the matriarch with the family played by Geraldine Page in a remarkable performance full of despair and overwrought anxiety. With a history of mental illness, the husband’s impetuous decision sets her spiraling into a state of misery where she becomes a nuisance to her daughters and a threat to herself. It’s no coincidence that the bulk of Woody Allen’s oeuvre deals with similar themes and subject matter that Bergman obsessed about during his career such as relationships, artistic integrity, faith, life and of course, death. This film is no different in those regards except it is exclusively unique as anything Allen has ever done because of how austere he is in his methods of displaying such a piercing representation of his characters in crisis.</div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-1775296370734830155?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-87121945997405434482008-03-03T16:02:00.002-05:002008-03-03T16:07:37.797-05:00<a href="http://bp2.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R8xnogziEpI/AAAAAAAAADc/uza2YjYN6y8/s1600-h/high+fidelity.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5173624017640362642" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R8xnogziEpI/AAAAAAAAADc/uza2YjYN6y8/s400/high+fidelity.jpg" border="0" /></a> Another cut-and-paste of an <a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2007/09/high-fidelity-old-review.html">older review </a>just to keep the ball rolling.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-8712194599740543448?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-55432052807942672872008-02-26T11:26:00.002-05:002008-02-26T11:28:07.142-05:00<a href="http://bp3.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R8Q945HqWmI/AAAAAAAAADU/OdUgcJKjI7w/s1600-h/alltherealgirls.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5171326319743097442" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R8Q945HqWmI/AAAAAAAAADU/OdUgcJKjI7w/s400/alltherealgirls.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />The first scene is one of startling tenderness and genuine emotion that sets the tone for the entire film. A young man and woman are face to face in the cold airy night exchanging soft delicate words. There is a moment where she asks him, “Why haven’t you ever kissed me before?” He responds plaintively, “I’m scared. Mostly because I don’t want it to be like when I kissed other girls.” She then responds with a gesture, suggesting that he kiss the palm of her hand and that way it wouldn’t be like the other girls. I’ve returned to this film on numerous occasions just to watch this opening scene unfold and each time it completely bowls me over in the way that Green is able to illustrate such transcending compassion between two people with such simplicity where their feelings for each other become fully realized. Of course, this scene wouldn't work without the fantastic performances of Zooey Deschanel and Paul Schneider who absolutely shine in their roles here. They each respectively give their characters nuance and idiosyncrasies; convincingly depicting them as flawed individuals who are vulnerable and desperately seeking for affection.<br /><br />Few modern film romances released in the last couple years are as sincerely portrayed or tentatively impressionistic than the one found in David Gordon Green’s <strong><em>All the Real Girls</em></strong>. Eschewing the typical Hollywood-esque romance genre conventions, Green is intent on transposing the naive ideals and unreal expectations of love into something with tangential potency. The story itself is overly simplistic: Noel and Paul live in a small rural town in North Carolina full of broken-relationships where honest compassion is scarcely to be found. She is the kid sister of Paul’s best friend who has just returned home from boarding school and he is the local town’s Romeo. They decide to date for a while, break up on account of betrayal and painfully attempt to atone for their discretions (past and present) by getting back together. These are not spoilers of any kind because the actual plot remains secondary to Green’s examination of young love and the disappointments associated with vicariously relying on love to achieve enlightenment. The prospect of love being this all powerful instrument in curing one’s personal afflictions is a common misconception and Green is keen on reinforcing this notion through his young couple’s troublesome relationship.<br /><br />With awe-inducing cinematography, Green successfully establishes a time and place where the environment plays a significant role in the different character’s behavior and attitudes. That isn’t to say that he is condescending towards these characters, portraying them as uneducated bumpkins. His film is distinctively southern and by capturing the ordinary details of every day life in this small southern community, Green is able to use the setting as a method in creating verisimilitude for his story. At times imperfect especially as the film comes to a close; <strong><em>All the Real Girls</em></strong> sustains a remarkable amount of poetic lyricism throughout and remains a powerful expression of genuine heartfelt intimacy between the lead characters which is all too rare in the majority of romances churned out of Hollywood these days.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-5543205280794267287?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-54310442539318085332008-02-25T13:28:00.005-05:002008-02-25T13:38:58.722-05:00<a href="http://bp2.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R8MJD5HqWlI/AAAAAAAAADM/ft_U-SS4xAQ/s1600-h/husbandsandwives.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5170986759628675666" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R8MJD5HqWlI/AAAAAAAAADM/ft_U-SS4xAQ/s400/husbandsandwives.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>Woody Allen has made an illustrious career as a filmmaker tackling the subject of love and relationships from every possible angle but none are as more delicately profound or intimate than <strong>Husbands and Wives</strong> which would prove to be his final collaboration with Mia Farrow; his wife at the time and recurring star in many of his films starting in the early 80’s. At the time of its release, the film caused a media sensation resulting in many critics accusing Allen of using it as a springboard to attack Farrow. In retrospect, it makes sense that people would ultimately jump to this conclusion because of the striking similarities between the characters they play in the film and their real-life relationship which sadly came to an end shortly after when Allen’s scandalous affair with his adopted step-daughter Soon-Yi Previn surfaced. As is the case with many movie celebrities, their on-screen persona or artistic endeavors tend to be intermingled with their real-life so the question remains: Where does one draw the line in forming a distinction between the two? It’s a tricky business that relies on presumptions rather than effective criticism and is ultimately reductive. It is the opinion of this humble critic that the artist and the art they create are inseparable but should be examined as separate entities. As DH Lawrence famously once said, “Never trust the artist, trust the tale.”<br /><br />With that statement in mind, viewing <strong>Husbands and Wives</strong> from an objective standpoint reveals that Allen isn’t so much as revealing personal details of his relationship with Farrow. Instead, he is more interested in exploring the reasons why relationships are so difficult to maintain and the destructive nature of human folly when love is thrown into the equation. By grounding the film in a quasi-documentary style, Allen breaks the barrier between fictional characterizations to reveal something a little more privy to actual life. The anonymous documentary crew is given direct access to interview the various characters with questions pertaining to their relationships with one another. As a creative gesture, Allen does not dispose of the grainy, hand-held camerawork often associated with the genre and continues to use it, capturing even the most private moments between characters – furthermore blurring the line between fiction and truth. </div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><br>The story centers predominantly around two couples: Gabe (Allen) is a literature professor who is happily married to Judy (Farrow), an art magazine editor. Their best friends are Jack (Sydney Pollack) and Sally (Judy Davis) who come over for drinks one night to announce that they are getting a divorce. This shocking information sets off a chain of events in the relationship between Gabe and Judy where they slowly begin to drift apart as buried feelings along with unfulfilled desires are brought to fruition. What begins as a harmless quarrel of dissatisfaction escalates into a serious problem as they struggle to keep their relationship from falling apart. Jack and Sally are also finding it difficult as divorced middle-aged singles despite creating a façade of happiness with their newfound partners just to spite each other. Gabe starts up a relationship with a bright young female student named Rain (Juliette Lewis) as Farrow forms an attraction with a handsome co-worker named Michael (Liam Neeson). Far from your typical romance of disenchanted lovers, Woody Allen skillfully places his characters in specific romantic relationships that insightfully comments on the complex nature of love and human companionship while at the same time having a sense of humor about it. Who hooks up with who is of minor importance in contrast to Allen’s established thematic framework and search for rational explanations concerning why relationships have to be some complicated and what makes them work. By the end of the film it is clear that he has still yet to find the answer.</div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-5431044253931808533?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-83949773248424267052008-02-25T13:26:00.001-05:002008-02-25T13:27:43.164-05:00<a href="http://bp3.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R8MIlJHqWkI/AAAAAAAAADE/cb_eKmMRgkE/s1600-h/metropolitan1.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5170986231347698242" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R8MIlJHqWkI/AAAAAAAAADE/cb_eKmMRgkE/s400/metropolitan1.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>Stillman is a hermetic director who made three films in the 90’s before disappearing entirely. It’s a shame he decided to call it quits because his debut <strong>Metropolitan</strong> showcases a budgeoning auteur with a sharp ear for refreshing dialogue where his characters are pre-occupied with philosophical musings or existential thoughts of reality which brings to mind the works of Woody Allen or Richard Linklater. If you happen to be a fan of either director, this is the film for you. However, the difference is that Stillman’s work tends to focus more on socialism and conformity created by a specific milieu -- in this case it happens to be small group of rich college preppies living in Manhattan who as one character refers to as UHB: an acronym for Urban Haute Bourgeoisie. It’s a clever title that is meant to abolish the standard referral of “upper-class” since its meaning is no longer entirely relevant in contemporary society.<br /><br />The film takes place over the course of the Christmas break for these first year college students who dress as debutantes and attend various social functions. Enter Tom (Chris Eigman), a middle-class Princeton student who rents luxury suits and puts on a pseudo-intellectual guise in order to integrate himself into this elitist niche. As luck should have it, he bumps into an old female classmate named Audrey (Carolyn Farina) at one of these prestigious balls who happens to be part of this rich upper-class (like in the real world, it’s who you know) and introduces him to her select group of friends where he begins to form a friendly relationship with them. Nick (Chris Eigeman) is one of the people that Tom’s takes an instant liking to mostly for his cynical nature and views on the disintegrating bourgeoisie class system. The rest of the story follows Tom’s various escapades among these haughty individuals and his struggle for social acceptance. It’s important to note that Stillman’s film is not to be taken at face value and above all else, is a social satire that takes witty jabs at pretentiousness while also being a meditation on growing up. For a film that is very dialogue heavy, the script exemplifies great writing where irreverent comedy with a social conscience is seamlessly interwoven with intellectual ruminations about life itself. These characters are not exactly likeable but their insecurities, relationships and problems they encounter ring true for those not quite ready to accept adult responsibilities.</div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-8394977324842426705?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-62672810957295697372008-02-25T13:06:00.017-05:002008-03-16T08:45:09.229-04:00In the attempt of resurrecting my dead blog I present you dear readers with my arbitrary <strong>Top 100</strong> films of all time. Let me clarify that this not a definitive <strong>"Greatest Films of all time"</strong> list<strong> </strong>but simply a personal list of specific films that have influenced me as a cinephile and ones that reflect my adoration of cinema. Thanks for reading and comments are always welcome!<br /><br /><strong><em>Honorable Mention #1</em></strong>: <a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2008/03/honorable-mention-1-harry-potter-and.html">Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Cuaron, 2003)</a><br />Honorable Mention #2: <a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2008/03/honorable-mention-2-ghostbusters.html">Ghostbusters (Reitman, 1984)<br /></a><br />100. <a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2008/02/100-robin-hood-rietherman.html">Robin Hood (Reitherman, 1973) </a><br />99. <a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2008/02/99-me-and-you-and-everyone-we-know.html">Me and You and Everyone We Know (July, 2005)<br /></a>98. <a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2008/02/98-days-of-wine-and-roses-edwards-1962.html">Days of Wine and Roses (Edwards, 1962)</a><br />97. <a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2008/02/97-metropolitan-stillman-1990.html">Metropolitan (Stillman, 1990)</a><br />96. <a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2008/02/96-husbands-and-wives-allen-1992.html">Husbands and Wives (Allen, 1992)</a><br />95. <a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2008/02/95-all-real-girls-green-2003.html">All the Real Girls (Green, 2003)</a><br />94. <a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2008/03/94-high-fidelity-frears-2000.html">High Fidelity (Frears, 2000)</a><br />93. <a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2008/03/93-interiors-allen-1978.html">Interiors (Allen, 1978)</a><br />92. <a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2008/03/92-johnny-guitar-ray-1954.html">Johnny Guitar (Ray, 1954)</a><br />91. <a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2008/03/91-eyes-wide-shut-kubrick-1999.html">Eyes Wide Shut (Kubrick, 1999)</a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-6267281095729569737?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-71367565318628754872008-02-25T12:59:00.002-05:002008-02-25T13:02:13.175-05:00<a href="http://bp2.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R8MCh5HqWjI/AAAAAAAAAC4/xvGhF7kEZ8s/s1600-h/Daysofwineandroses.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5170979578443356722" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R8MCh5HqWjI/AAAAAAAAAC4/xvGhF7kEZ8s/s400/Daysofwineandroses.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>So, Jack Lemmon makes his first appearance and definitely not his last on my list. What is it about this guy that I find so appealing? For starters, he’s one hell of an actor with incredible dramatic range and comedic talent with a knack for effortlessly switching gears between the two without missing a beat. Lemmon has the nice guy persona down-pat and took on many roles during his career where he personified the “every man” which makes him instantly relatable. In Blake Edward’s <strong>Day of Wine and Roses</strong>, Lemmon plays Joe Clay, a successful public relations man whose downward spiral is caused by alcoholism. Many comparisons have been made to Wilder’s Lost Weekend which deals with similar subject matter except this one is a much more realistic portrayal of alcohol addiction and doesn’t succumb to painting a perfect picture of full recovery at the end. Instead, it opts to show the horrors of alcohol abuse and the challenging ordeal of maintaining sobriety with all the pratfalls in between.<br /><br />Clay’s profession involves being an avid socialite with clients so naturally, drinking is part of the equation when he takes them out to restaurants or fancy clubs. He starts a relationship with a beautiful secretary in his office building played by the voluptuous Lee Remick whose radical transformation from a puritan to a raging alcoholic is devastatingly portrayed. My only gripe with the film is her sudden change of heart towards Lemmon who strongly resents him when they first meet and then erratically has a change of heart almost instantaneously. It would have been a lot more convincing if she actually had a reason to give him another chance after he insults her. Still, I am able to overlook this minor formality in regards to everything that the film does get right which is plenty – two tour-de force performances from Lemmon and Remick who were robbed of acting Oscars that year, solid direction and a wonderful script with nary a falsity that is unflinching in presenting the harsh reality of how alcoholism can destroy lives. The films closing moments are heartbreaking and ambiguous in nature which works to emphasize Edward’s position that beating alcoholism takes more than commitment where difficult decisions need to be made no matter how unpleasant the results. </div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-7136756531862875487?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-82474390066139537622008-02-25T02:18:00.002-05:002008-02-25T02:20:23.678-05:00<a href="http://bp2.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R8JsKJHqWiI/AAAAAAAAACw/HhX7GH8DYOI/s1600-h/MeandYouand+EveryoneYouLove.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5170814243677297186" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R8JsKJHqWiI/AAAAAAAAACw/HhX7GH8DYOI/s400/MeandYouand+EveryoneYouLove.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>I'm feeling a bit lazy so here's the <a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2007/07/me-you-and-everyone-you-know-july-2005.html">link </a>to a previous review I wrote on this film.</div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-8247439006613953762?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-60873832970603597942008-02-25T02:08:00.002-05:002008-02-25T02:12:26.419-05:00<a href="http://bp2.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R8JqTJHqWhI/AAAAAAAAACo/-8S5xSxWMEA/s1600-h/RobinHood.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5170812199272864274" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/R8JqTJHqWhI/AAAAAAAAACo/-8S5xSxWMEA/s400/RobinHood.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>As a kid growing up, Robin Hood was hero of mine because he defied authority and played by his own rules. An expert at sword fighting, archery and quick thinking made him a threat to his enemies. Above all else, he always managed to win the girl in the end. It should be pointed out that he wasn’t without his flaws such as being incredibly brash in his abilities and conceited at times which almost leads to tragic consequences. His bravery and devotion to being a crusader for the people was something to aspire to.<br /><br />The compilation of any type of “favorite movie list” especially one of this magnitude is a daunting task that involves constant shuffling and re-examination in order to get it just right. The relentless scrutiny over placement can be very stressful albeit rewarding because for those of us who take cinema seriously, these lists are often a direct reflection what cinema personally means to the individual and the impact said film(s) has on them. A strategy that I used to help make this list a little easier for myself to complete was to use nostalgia as a key to narrowing down films that have a direct correlation to my childhood. After all, certain films that I watched constantly as a youngster were highly influential in shaping my interest in cinema today and Disney’s Robin Hood happens to fall into that category. While there have been plenty of depictions of the famous rogue of Sherwood Forest over the years, none surpass this version in terms of sheer entertainment value, laughs or charm although Michael Curtiz’s version starring Errol Flynn comes close. It may be animated with animals playing the key roles but the rebellious spirit and sense of adventure inhabited by this classic tale remains untarnished.<br /><br />This underrated Disney classic is a breezily entertaining affair for both kids and adults. Imbedded with a bluesy style emphasized by the narrator played by a rooster (that even becomes a character in the story) who sings and strums away on his banjo as he tells the story of Robin Hood sets the tone of the film. Roger Miller does great voice-work for him and is responsible for the majority of the fantastic songs on the soundtrack too with “Not In Nottingham” remaining the standout track and one of most moving scenes in the Disney canon because of it. Of course, not enough can be said of the iconic villain Prince John (Peter Ustinov) the lion and his slithering side-kick Sir Hiss (Terry-Thomas). This dynamic duo offer more laughs than any of the other Disney flicks and their relationship is actually a lot more interesting to watch unfold than say Robin Hood and Little John. The Prince’s infantile behavior (he clearly has mommy issues) and absent-mindedness offers plenty of laughs. He is also prone to sudden bursts of rage towards Sir Hiss which is cruelly comical. Nostalgia aside, this film still holds up surprisingly well even today which is often not the case when returning to childhood favorites. No matter what my mood, I can throw on my worn out VHS copy and for those brief 83 minutes, feel giddy like a kid again as if watching this film for the first time. </div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-6087383297060359794?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-3143842594596976642008-02-01T18:20:00.002-05:002008-02-13T19:37:04.131-05:00Feb. 1st: Husbands and Wives (Allen, 1992): [****] <em>3rd</em><br />Feb. 1st<em>:</em> Coffy (Hill, 1973): [*]<br />Feb. 1st: Funky Forest: The First Contact (Ishii, 2005): ??????????????????????<br />Feb. 2nd: Darjeeling Limited (Anderson, 2007): [***1/2]<br />Feb. 4th: Spirit of the Beehive (Enrice, 1973): [****]<br />Feb. 4th: Shoot the Piano Player (Truffaut, 1962): [***]<br />Feb. 6th: Johnny Guitar (Ray, 1954): [****]<br />Feb 6th: Interiors (Allen, 1978): [***1/2]<br />Feb 6th: Election (To, 2005): [**]<br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Feb 6th: Superfly (Parks Jr., 1972): [Muther-fuckin' cool]</strong></span><br />Feb 8th: Sunrise (Murnau, 1927): [***1/2]<br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Feb 8th: The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (Powell, 1943): [****]</strong></span><br /><strong><span style="color:#666666;">Feb 8th: Heathers (Lehman, 1988): [***1/2]</span></strong><br />Feb. 9th: Michael Clayton (Gilroy, 2007): [**]<br />Feb 12th: Lars and the Real Girl (Gillespie 2007): [***1/2]<br />Feb 12th: Cluny Brown (Lubitsch, 1946): [**]<br />Feb 13th: Talk to Her (Almodavar, 2002): [***1/2]<br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;"></span></strong><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-314384259459697664?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-24584992627017708742008-01-03T15:44:00.000-05:002008-02-02T00:47:42.355-05:0001/08: Carnal Knowledge (Nichols, 1971): [***]<br />01/08: The Awful Truth (McCarey, 1934): [***1/2]<br />02/08: No Country for Old Men (Coen, 2008): [***1/2]<br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>02/08: Killer of Sheep (Burnett, 1977): [****]</strong></span><br />02/08: Sherlock Jr. (Keaton, 1924): [****]<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">03/08: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (Nichols, 1966): [****]</span></strong><br /><span style="color:#666666;">03/08: Memories of Murder (Bong, 2003): [***]</span><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">03/08: To Be Or Not to Be (Lubitsch, 1942): [****]</span></strong><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="color:#666666;">06/08: Charlie Wilson's War (Nichols, 2007): [***]</span></span><br /><span style="color:#666666;">07/08: Rosetta (Dardennes, 1999): [*]</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>08/08: Ordet (Dreyer, 1955): [****]</strong></span><br /><span style="color:#666666;">08/08: The Vanishing (1988): [***]</span><br /><span style="color:#666666;">09/08: Henry Fool (Hartley, 1997): [**]</span><br /><span style="color:#666666;">10/08: Best of Youth (Giordani, 2003): [***1/2]</span><br /><span style="color:#666666;">10/08: Juno (Reitman, 2007): [****]</span><br /><span style="color:#666666;">10/08: The Shape of Things (LaBute, 20003): [***1/2]</span><br /><span style="color:#666666;">14/08: Through a Glass Darkly (Bergman, 1961): [**]</span><br /><span style="color:#666666;">14/08: Elevator to the Gallows (Malle, 1958): [***1/2]</span><br /><span style="color:#666666;">15/08: Persepolis (Paronnaud/Satrapi, 2007): [***]</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>15/08: Rififi (Dassin, 1955): [****]</strong></span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>15/08: La Haine (Kassovitz, 1995): [****]</strong></span><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">17/08: Juno (Reitman, 2007): [****] <em>2nd</em></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">17/08: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (Black, 2005): [****]</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">19/08: Juno (Reitman, 2007): [****]<em> 3rd</em></span></strong><br /><span style="color:#666666;">20/08: Beowulf (Zemeckis, 2007): [**]</span><br />22/08: There Will Be Blood (Anderson, 2007): [***1/2]<br />23/08: Robocop (Verhoeven, 1985): [***1/2]<br />23/08: I'm Not There (Haynes, 2007): [***]<br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>23/08: Raise the Red Lantern (Yimou, 1991): [****]</strong></span><br /><span style="color:#666666;">25/08: Lady Snowblood (Fujita, 1973): [***1/2]</span><br /><span style="color:#666666;">25/08: Sweeny Todd (Burton, 2007): [***]</span><br /><span style="color:#666666;">28/08: The Taking of Pelham 123 (Sargent, 1974): [***]</span><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">28/08: Ikiru (Kurosawa, 1952): [****]</span></strong><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>28/08: The Blade (Hark, 1995): [****]</strong></span><br /><span style="color:#666666;">29/08: The Big Red One (Fuller, 1982): [***/12]</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>29/08: Playtime (Tati, 1967): ?????</strong></span><br />30/08: The Conformist (Bertolucci, 1970): [***1/2]<br />30/08: Heroes of the East (Liang, 1979): [***1/2]<br />31/08: The Conversation (Coppolla, 1974): [****]<br />31/08: Death Trance (Shimomura, 2005): [***1/2]<br />31/08: Django (Corbucci, 1966): [***]<br /><br /><br /><span style="color:#666666;"></span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-2458499262701770874?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-46600624309138927562007-12-20T10:07:00.001-05:002007-12-20T11:58:57.339-05:00<a href="http://www.indiewire.com/ots/talktomeSTILLnew.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.indiewire.com/ots/talktomeSTILLnew.jpg" border="0" /></a> <span style="font-size:78%;">"<em>Wake up, goddammit!</em> " </span><br /><br /><div>Curse you procrastination! I've been slacking on my reviews and it's about time I started to add a little bit more content to this blog of mine. Thanks for your continued support! </div><br /><div></div><div>Please, someone give Don Cheadle an Oscar already. This blatant attempt at false modesty needs to come to an end before someone gets hurt. His ability to transform himself for every role (no matter how minimal) is astonishing but he continually gets snubbed. Why is that? We know that the academy isn't racist despite their inconsistent reputation at making bone-headed decisions and several actors of color have won in the past (even though they were questionable at best: Halle Berry for Monster's Ball anyone?). 2004 was Cheadle's year when he gave a tour-de-force performance in the political thriller <strong>Hotel Rwanda </strong>as<strong> </strong>Paul Rusesabagina and even though he was nominated, losing to Jaime Foxx was a travesty. Don't get me wrong, I think Foxx proved himself to be taken seriously as an actor and while he was able to convincing portray Ray Charles down to a tee including his speech along with the various mannerisms, it lacked the control of Cheadle's performance which felt more natural and less of a gimmick. </div><br /><div>Don Cheadle returns this year in another biopic, this time as Ralph Waldo "Petey" Greene, African-American convict who decides to pursue a job as a radioman during the 60's that influenced the medium by walking on a thin line between radio code of conduct and pragmatism without straying too far into blind-sided chauvinism. As an outspoken individual who gave no precedence to say the truth regardless of the crackdown on the freedom of speech for minority groups especially Blacks, Greene becomes a voice for the people, not only to the frustrated lower class African Americans (despite them being his largest fanbase) but to an entire nation that was at war with itself during the Civil Rights movement. His friendship with Dewey Hughes (Chiwetel Ejiofor), the man who puts his career on the line to get Petey the job at the radio station is the heart of the film; two men who are fond of one another but have different visions of what they want to achieve with their newfound success. The wonderful chemistry between Ejiofor and Cheadle is palpatable and they both light up the screen as their brotherly love begins to disintegrate as ardent decisions are made and circumstances split them apart. The script is chalk-full of great dialogue and the two leads take full advantage of it. The clash of disparate personalities allows for plenty of humorous exchanges of dialogue that flow naturally. Don Cheadle loses himself completely in this role that is so authentic that it becomes difficult to distinguish the actor from the chracter he is playing. I'm thinking about starting a campaign on his behalf in order for the Acadmedy to recongize this performance because it is clearly one of standouts of this year.</div><br /><div>Biopics seem to be a dime a dozen these days. While <strong>Talk to Me </strong>follows the formulaic rise and fall of the central protagonist, newcomer female director Kasi Lemmons infuses a refreshing amount of charm and sophistication to elevate her film above the typical run-of the mill genre tropes. It becomes a powerful statement on the freedom of speech that doesn't succumb to ramming the message down the viewer's throats. As provocative as it is heartfelt, this is a groovy film told with honesty and not only is it an invigorating true story but also happens to be one of the best films of 2007.</div><div> </div><div></div><div><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[***1/2]</span></strong></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-4660062430913892756?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-56400886950172088992007-12-19T22:11:00.000-05:002007-12-20T00:30:27.679-05:00<div align="left"><a href="http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2007/07/25/atonement460.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2007/07/25/atonement460.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;"><em> Robbie Turner (McAvoy) and Cecilia Tallis (Knightly) share a passionate embrace by the seaside.</em></span></div><div align="left"><em><span style="font-size:78%;"></span></em><br /><div align="left">Reminscent of a stuffy ivory chamber drama except with a much bigger budget, Ian McEwan's breathtaking novel of forbidden love, deceit, the growing pains of childhood and the power of art all set to the backdrop of WWII is brought to life by Joe Wright (of 2005's Pride and Prejudice fame) and his group of talented young actors in Keira Knightly, James McAvoy and Saoirse Ronan. What made the novel such a rapturous read was McEwan's exceptional story-telling ability, the rich detail and his firm grasp of the English language that took on a classic poeticsm so rare in contemporary literature. Wright's film is an earnest adaptation that is faithful to the text only it feels slightly hollow containing only the main plot points of the book abandoning McEwan's elegant literary craftsmanship. While the film posesses moments of cinematic beauty and impressive direction including a sweeping long-take lasting several minutes during the evacuation of soliders stationed at Dunkirk, much of the stylistic flourishes become redundant and come across as filler due to the lack of a strong narrative.</div><br />It would be too easy to label this film as "Oscar bait" and even though it is bound to be clumped into that infamous category, part of me believes that there are enough positive aspects that prevent such placement. The acting all around remains the saving grace here with Knightly giving the peformance of her career and James McAvoy stealing every scene whom is bound to be nominated this year. Even newcomer Saoirse Ronan does excellent work as the precocious young Briony who is the integral figure of the story who sets the traumatic events in motion. Her chracter's wide-eyed innocence and curiousity in which she doesn't fully comprehend the adult world is portrayed with great maturity for an actor so young. The low-ley transient score by Dario Marianelli compliments the tone of the film perfectly and creatively implementing the sound of the type-writer keys was a nice touch. Finally, there's Joe Wright who has clearly established himself as a director in control of his vision and actors. <strong>Atonement </strong>being his sophmore effort, Wright shows tremendous talent as a budding director and he's one to keep an eye on in the future. The tackling of such a complex piece of literarture would be a daunting task for anyone and even though he is only marginally successful, one must applaud his efforts.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[***]</span></strong> </div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-5640088695017208899?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-38407961247640802952007-12-05T15:27:00.000-05:002007-12-30T23:14:47.387-05:00<span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>05/12: Sansho the Bailiff (Mizoguchi, 1954): [****]</strong></span><br /><span style="color:#666666;"><strong>05/12: Broadway Danny Rose (Allen, 1984): [****]</strong><br /><strong>05/12: Mission: Impossible III (Abrams, 2006): [**]</strong><br /><strong>05/12: Say Anything (Crowe, 1989): [***1/2]</strong><br /><strong>06/12: Scoop (Allen, 2006): [***]</strong><br /><strong>06/12: The Ice Harvest (Ramis, 2005): [***1/2]</strong><br /><strong>09/12: Melinda and Melinda (Allen, 2005): [***1/2]</strong><br /><strong>13/12: Better Off Dead (Holland, 1985): [**]</strong><br /><strong>15/12: Talk to Me (Lemmons, 2007): [***1/2]</strong> </span><br /><span style="color:#666666;"><strong>18/12: Atonement (Wright, 2007): [***]</strong></span><br />20/12: Rosemary's Baby (Polanski, 1968): [***1/2]<br />20/12: Fresh (Yakin, 1994): [****]<br />20/12: Radio Days (Allen, 1985): [***]<br />20/12: <em>Ginger Snaps (Fawcett, 2000): [***1/2]</em><br />24/12: <em>Three Colours: White (Kieslowski, 1994): [***1/2]</em><br />25/12: Les Diaboliques (Clouzout, 1955): [***1/2]<br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>25/12: It's a Wonderful Life (Capra, 1946): [****]</strong></span><br />26/12: The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser (Herzog, 1974): [***]<br />26/12: A Zed and Two Noughts (Greenaway, 1985): ????????<br />26/12: Brief Encounter (Lean, 1945): [***]<br />26/12: I am Legend (Lawrence, 2007): [**]<br />29/12: Block Party (Gondry, 2005): [***1/2]<br />30/12: Before the Devil Knows Your Dead (Lumet, 2007): [***]<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#999999;"></span></strong><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-3840796124764080295?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-46378113468669814332007-11-28T10:48:00.000-05:002007-11-28T14:23:31.935-05:00<a href="http://uwmike.com/wp-content/uploads/goblet-of-fire.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://uwmike.com/wp-content/uploads/goblet-of-fire.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><em>Written November 20, 2005</em><br /><br />Some people just won't be happy with anything less than a dressed stage reading of the Harry Potter books. Try to see this from a producers point of view: J.K. Rowlings Goblet of Fire is a 734 pages long and if it was adapted page for page the film would end up being 10 hours long putting the audience to sleep and cost even more money to make (the budget is already 150 million!). Therefore, it makes sense that certain parts need to be cut from the book in order to fit the required running time which is the case here. For instance, in the book, Dooby is the one who provides Harry with gillyweed for the second task but in the movie it is Nevell. Why would they change this small detail? The most logical explaination would be so there isn't any time wasted by re-introducing Dobby. As a matter of fact, I am glad Newell decided to give Nevell a larger role in the film because he becomes a much more important character in the later books. The mystery surrounding the assailant who released the dark mark at the Quidditch World Cup is actually revealed which eliminates the entire Winky The House-Elf subplot. Hermione's S.P.E.W activities are also cut along with the annual quidditch season at Hogwarts. Hardcore Potter fans will probably be upset that a lot of the material was tweaked or cut but considering the difficult task that Steve Kloves (screenwriter) and Newell faced, I think they did a great job in focusing as close as they could on the major plotlines of the story and weeding out anything that was not remotely related to Harry's plight.<br /><br />Sitting comfortably in the jam-packed theatre, I could barely contain my excitement and my friend had to repeatedly tell me to calm down several times because I was literally jumping out of my seat in anticpation. I could not help myself! I'm a huge fan of the Harry Potter series and the Goblet of Fire is my favorite book out of them all (that can change depending on book 7!), so naturally I was so anxious to see how Newell would approach the material. Needless to say, the movie did not disappoint and is by far the best of the adaptations. It's Harry Potter's fourth year at Hogwarts and the school is hosting the Tri-Wizard Tournament. Two other magical schools arrive to take part in this legendary event. Only one student from each school is chosen by the Goblet of Fire to compete in the dangerous tournament but when Harry's name is mysteriously expelled from the Goblet, he now must now stand up to the challenge. With a new year, comes a new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher and this time it is an ex-auror (dark-wizard catcher) named Mad-eye Moody played superbly by Brenden Gleeson. All the supperting characters are back but I would have been more satisfied if Snape (Rickman) was given more screen-time since he is one of the more intriguing supporting characters. This film is much bigger, darker, emotional and more satisfying than the predecessors. Its interesting how the films keep getting better instead of declining in quality like other sequels (*cough, Star Wars).<br /><br />The three main leads are maturing just like their characters and this time around, their acting abilities have vastly improved. They no longer seem to be reading off cue cards or acting over-the-top. I always felt that Daniel Radcliffe was the weakest out of the three when it came to acting but in this film, he really seemed to come into his element. Surprisingly, Rupert Grint did an admirable job in his role as Ron and managed to not come off as annoying like in the other films. He is the comedic centerpiece of the film and even though his facial expressions were a little repetitive, Grint seemed much more comofrtable in his role. Personally, Emma Watson who plays Hermione, outshines her two male co-stars in this film. Many will probably say that she "over-acts" in many of her scenes but I disagree. I think she did a great job portraying the fragile and emotional Hermione who in the book does go through bursts of fluxuating mood swings. Well, that's puberty for you.<br /><br />The speical effects are expanded greatly but the filmmakers did a great job of not having it overshadow the story. Newell did an amazing job with the The Yule Ball sequence not only in design but in terms of characterization. Being teenagers, they obiviously have to deal with issues such as relationships and the Yule Ball really provides that sense of teenage angst. It acts an emotional focal point where the characters become more self-aware of the opposite sex and have to deal with their feelings towards one another. The first task with the Dragons was intense and having it chase Harry around the Hogwarts grounds was a nice touch. The second task with the Mermaid people was weaker in the special effects department but still managed to be quite exciting. The final task with the gigantic maze was riveting but I was hoping they would show some of creatures like the Sphinx in the maze, but that was cut. I can forgive them for that small detail since the filmakers wanted to spend more time on the gripping climax. In terms of the score, John Williams has stepped down for this film and is replaced by Patrick Doyle who offers a less bombastic musical accompaniment but manages to hit all the right notes. I wouldnt be surprised if he is nominated for best musical score come Oscar time.<br /><br />If you haven't already noticed, I am a harry-potter fan boy and this review is slightly biased but of course there were certain aspects that the film could have approved on. The editing could have been more polished and less disconjointed which might throw certain viewers off. At times, the story did feel a bit rushed and certain scenes would just seem to cut to one another unexpectedly. From another perspective this allows the film to have a very brisk pacing but others might mind find it to a tad bit disorienting. For instance, there is a lot of emphasis put on journey to the Quidditch World Cup but they don't show any footage of the actual match. The first two films by Chris Columbus were easy to follow for those who had never read the books. But with Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban and especially with this film, those who have not read the book might find it difficult to follow along because there will be too many unanswered questions. I am skeptical if there will ever be a Harry Potter film that will perfectly capture the esscence of Rowling's vision but The Goblet of Fire is as close as it gets. The waiting game for the Order of the Phoenix now begins... </div><div><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[***1/2]</strong></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>I am sorry for all the distress I have caused you.</em></span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-4637811346866981433?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-64644204026667377292007-11-27T14:09:00.000-05:002007-11-27T15:30:51.775-05:00This is the first time I've ever participated in a <em>blog-a-thon </em>and hopefully my contribution meets the preliminary expectations. There one taking place at<a href="http://philosopherouge.wordpress.com/2007/11/24/a-michael-powell-emeric-pressburger-blog-a-thon/"> Beyond the Valley of the Cinephiles</a> if you so happen to be interested and I would recommend checking out this film blog because there is a lot of fascinating intellectual criticism by the lovely lady behind the site.<br /><br /><strong>The Red Shoes</strong> was my first introduction to Michael Powell &amp; Emeric Pressburger's prodiguous film canon and it's with great reverence that I proclaim them to be nothing short of masterful artisans of the highest order. Their creative story techniques are thematically compelling whilst taking full advantage of technicolor to form a lush tapestry of vibrant color schemes emphasizing the grandiose sets, costumes and choreography. Gushing praise aside, the primary focus of this review will pertain to analyzing two aspects that interest me a great deal which include the ambiguous <em>life imitating art</em> debate and the prestigous<em> mise-en-scene </em>where both run parallel to transform this film into a breathtaking piece of cinema.<br /><br />To be continued...<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-6464420402666737729?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-75045473906926913062007-11-14T18:15:00.000-05:002007-12-17T09:00:09.934-05:00For my 9K over at RT this idea came to me and thought I'd start brain-storming here. I will producing (ha, pun not intended) a list of <strong>100</strong> films that sucked well, lemonz and have received two stars or less from me. I tried not to go with the obvious choices. Let the flaming begin.<br /><br />1. Morvern Callar<br />2. Red Road<br />3. Shopgirl<br />4. After Life<br />5. Tout Va Bien<br />6. Passion of the Christ<br />7. La Notti Bianche<br />8. Picnic at Hanging Rock<br />9. I Heart Huckabees<br />10. Wonderland<br />11. Fat Girl<br />12. Close Encounters of the Third Kind<br />13. Grand Illusion<br />14. Happiness<br />15. Sympathy for Lady Vengeance<br />16. Death-Proof<br />17. Battlefield Earth<br />18. Big Fish<br />19. Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World<br />20. Simon Birch<br />21. Pscyho (1998)<br />22. Hollow Man<br />23. Natural Born Killers<br />24. Stranger Than Paradise<br />25. Planet of the Apes<br />26. Shane<br />27. Finding Neverland<br />28. Junior<br />29. Pay it Forward<br />30. Mars Attacks!<br />31. How the Grinch Stole Christmas<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-7504547390692691306?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-37352968427974057322007-11-12T22:15:00.013-05:002008-04-07T20:32:13.668-04:00A list about books? Isn't this supposed to be a blog devoted entirely to the various encompassing aspects of cinema? Well, the answer to that question is "Why, yes of course. But that doesn't mean I can't try something a little different to spice things up." Plus, the few readers that actually visit this blog are probably getting bored by re-reading the same old medicore film reviews. I've recently rekindled my love for literature and decided to put off watching films religiously (blashpemous, I know) in favor of catching up some literature. Not to mention I seem to have burned myself out watching on average three films a day and nothing seems to interest me anymore. So, with further delay, I present to you dear reader a list of 50 pieces of literature that I plan on reading throughout the year. If you have any suggestions for me please don't hesitate to let me know what essential works I should devote my time to. This list is in no particular order and is subject to change.<br /><br />Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel garcia Marquez<br />Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen<br />Lolita by Vladamir Nabokov<br />Jonathan Strange &amp; Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke<br /><strong>The Road by Cormac McCarthy</strong><br />100 Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez<br />Watership Down by Richard Adams<br />The Bottoms by Landsdale<br />Disgrace by J.M. Coetzee<br />The Brothers Karamazov<br />Alias Grace by Margaret Atwood<br />The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath<br />The Corrections by Jonathan Frazen<br />A Streetcar Named Desire by Williams<br />The Infernal Desire Machines of Doctor Hoffman by Angela Carter<br />The Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler<br />Life of Pi<br />The Devil in the White City by Erik Larson<br />Kavalier and Clay<br />The Zero by Jess Walter<br />East of Eden by John Steinback<br />Crime and Punishment<br />The Wind Up Bird Chronicle<br />Me Talk Pretty One Day<br />The Plague by Camus<br />The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald<br />La Debacle by Emile Zola<br />The Unbearable Lightness of Being<br />Bloodsucking Fiends<br />More than Human by Theodore Sturgeon<br />To Marry Medus by Theodore Sturgeon<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-3735296842797405732?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-53840107631514682772007-11-01T17:16:00.001-04:002007-11-29T20:39:19.225-05:00A new month is upon us so you know what that means!<br /><br />01/11: Grosse Pointe Blank (Armitage, 1997): [***1/2]<br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>02/11: Whisper of the Heart (Kon, 1995): [**** (M)] Note: Possible top 10 material</strong></span><br />06/11: The Neverending Story (Petersen, 1984): [***1/2]<br />07/11: Sweet and Lowdown (Allen, 1996): [***1/2]<br />07/11: The Da Vinci Code (Howard, 2006): [**]<br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>21/11: Paris, Texas (Wenders, 1984): [****]</strong></span><br /><span style="color:#666666;">22/11: Ace in the Hole (Wilder, 1951): [***1/2]</span><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">22/11: Being There (Ashby, 1979): [****]</span></strong><br /><span style="color:#666666;">27/11: The Red Shoes (1948): [***1/2]</span><br /><span style="color:#666666;">27/11: Barton Fink (Coen, 1991): [***]</span><br /><span style="color:#666666;">28/11: A Perfect World (Eastwood, 1993): [***]</span><br /><span style="color:#666666;">28/11: Eastern Promises (Cronenberg, 2007): [***1/2]</span><br /><span style="color:#666666;">29/11: Breakfast at Tiffany's (Edwards, 1961): [***1/2]</span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-5384010763151468277?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-80160865957775964122007-10-17T11:07:00.005-04:002008-03-22T19:02:21.313-04:00<a href="http://www.virginmedia.com/images/1scarlett-gal-lost-translation.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.virginmedia.com/images/1scarlett-gal-lost-translation.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><div align="center"><strong>Scarlett Johansson</strong><br /></div><div align="center">as</div><div align="center"><em>Charlotte </em><br /></div><div align="center">in</div><div align="center"><strong>Lost in Translation</strong> (2003)</div><div align="left"><br />Sofia Coppola's sophmore effort conveys the disillusionment and sense of alienation felt by its two main characters by intuitively creating a specific tone of melancholy through striking visuals, its shoegaze infused soundtrack and understated sleep-walking performances from Scarlett Johansson and Bill Murray. Influenced by European directors such as Godard and Antonioni, Coppola abandons traditional narrative conventions by creating a lucid dream-like atmosphere within her minimalistic story-line that is more driven by aesthetics rather than characters or plot. Instead, the film strives to portray a specific mood through self-reflexive means with the aid of contrasting image and sound (specifically music). Story-wise, <strong>Lost in Translation</strong> is not particulary ambitious and at times frivolous which in turn, reflects the attitudes and state of mind of Charlotte (Johansson) and Bob (Murray) who are both unsatisfied with their current positions in life and desperately seeking for some kind of enlightement vicariously through each other. </div><div align="left"><br />Johansson's quiet performance is understated in every sense of the word which doesn't rely on any kind of histrionics. She does an excellent job of internalizing her character's ennui and mediocrity. Charlotte is instantly relatable with the same emotional hang-ups of any pos-graduate plagued with uncertainty of the future. Her longing to find that special connection with someone also feels awfully familiar especially when miscommunication or lackthereof has become a popular norm in today's technologically motivated society. Charlotte's breakdown in the hotel room strikes a chord in its profundity as it reveals the overwhelming desire for finding a meaningful purpose in her life. Johansson's proclivty to internalize her character's existential turmoil is done with such subtley and natural conviction making her search for enlightenemnt all the more resonant.</div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-8016086595777596412?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-48161371984543923252007-10-08T20:06:00.000-04:002007-10-08T20:11:46.939-04:00<a href="http://www.darkhorizons.com/1998/antz/antz13.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.darkhorizons.com/1998/antz/antz13.jpg" border="0" /></a><em><span style="font-size:85%;">“I was not cut out to be a worker, I'll tell you right now. I feel physically inadequate. I, I... My whole life, I've never... I've NEVER been able to lift more than ten times my body weight.”</span></em><br /><br /><div>Due to the lack of updates, here's another review I digged up that was written in 2001. Seems like my writing hasn't improved that much at all. </div><div><br />When it comes to computer animated movies, Pixar is a tough cookie to compete against. Nevertheless, Antz which was created by a team from Dreamworks Studio is an absolute animated delight. What most impressed me was the way the team of animators was able to create such an infinitesimal world with striking detail. It’s truly a wonderful sight to behold. Each frame contains gorgeous animation that I would argue would be a worthy contender against Pixar’s <strong><em>A Bug’s Life</em></strong> and I personally find myself watching the former more often than the latter.<br /><br />An all star cast of actors do an excellent job of providing the voices for their digital characters including Gene Hackman, Christopher Walker, Sylvester Stallone, Sharon Stone, Danny Glover, Ann Hesche, Dan Akroyd and even Jennifer Lopez. However, the star voice actor is Woody Allen who voices Z, the main protagonist of the story. Allen basically plays himself here, that neurotic type of character we have come to know so well in his movies. The script is original, witty and sharp which I believe Woody Allen himself contributed to because it seems to contain his trademark writing style and nuances. It’s a perfect blend of comedy, romance, action and drama.<br /><br />Can one ant out of billions really make a difference? Darnell and Johnson explore the possibilities of this question and they succeed The story in a nutshell resolves around an ant colony that is governed by a communist dictatorship where General Mandible (Hackman) makes the major decisions with or without the Queen’s (Anne Bancroft) consent. Z is a worker ant, the lowest class in the colony that is forced into back breaking labor and has to comply with the orders given to him by the higher authorities. He wants his own independence and to put it in his words, “to think for himself.” Democracy, free will and equality come into play rather nicely but not in a heavy handed way.<br /><br />The strikingly beautiful animation coupled with a great script and talented voice actors, Antz proves to be more than just an animated movie. It all feels so real, full of imagination, adventure, and humor provided by one of the funniest comedians ever; Mr. Woody Allen. It’s seems to have been forgotten in comparison to the more popular Pixar films which is a damn shame. Not only is it an amazing accomplishment but one that every one of all ages can enjoy. I can only hope that it in years to come it will be remembered as a pivotal step towards animated feature films.</div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-4816137198454392325?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-90293452713227009922007-10-02T14:11:00.000-04:002007-11-01T17:29:57.925-04:00<span style="color:#333333;">02/10: The Weatherman (Verbinski, 2005): [***]<br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>02/10: The Proposition (Hillcoat, 2005): [****]</strong></span><br />03/10: Mysterious Skin (Araki, 2005): [***]<br />03/10: Metropolitan (Stillman, 1990): [***1/2]<br />03/10: Children of Men (Cuaron, 2006): <strong>[****]<em> </em></strong><em>2nd</em></span><br />04/10: Sunshine (Boyle, 2007): [***1/2]<br />04/10: Deathproof (Tarantino, 2007): [**]<br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>05/10: Perfume: The Story of a Murderer: [**** (M)]</strong></span> <em>2nd<br /></em>06/10: The Lookout (Frank, 2007): [***]<br />08/10: Live Free or Die Hard (Wisemen, 2007): [***1/2]<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">12/10: Pleasantville (Ross, 1998) - [****]</span></strong><br /><span style="color:#333333;">12/10: 1408 (Hafstrom, 2007) - [***1/2] </span><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">16/10: Ratatouille (Bird, 2007) - [****]</span></strong><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="color:#333333;">16/10: Reign Over Me (Binder, 2007) - [***]</span> </span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>17/10: Monster House (Kenen, 2006) - [****]</strong></span> </span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>17/10: Le Samourai (Melville, 1967) - [****]</strong></span><br /><span style="color:#333333;">17/10: Evil Dead (Raimi, 1981) - [**]</span><br />18/10: POTC: End of the World (Verbinski, 2007): [*] <em>2nd</em><br />18/10: The Lives of Others (Donnersmark, 2006): [***]<br />18/10: The House of Flying Daggers (Yimou, 2004): [***1/2]<br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>18/10: Network (Lumet, 1975): [**** (M)]</strong></span><br /><span style="color:#333333;">23/10: The Third Man (Reed, 1944): [***1/2]</span><br /><span style="color:#333333;">24/10: Night and the City (Dassin, 1950): [***]</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>24/10: Sleuth (Mankiewicz, 1972): [**** (M)]</strong></span><br /><span style="color:#666666;">24/10: The Bourne Ultimatium (Greengrass, 2007): [****]<br />24/10: Welcome to the Dollhouse (Solondz, 1995): [***1/2]</span><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">25/10: The Big Heat (Lang, 1953): [****]</span> </strong><br />25/10: 3:10 To Yuma (Mangold, 2007): [***]<br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>28/10: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (Hill, 1969): [****]</strong></span><br />29/10: Bottle Rocket (Anderson, 1996): [***1/2]<br />30/10: Wallace &amp; Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (Box/Park 2005): [***1/2]<br />30/10: Battle Royale (Fukasaku, 2000): [**]<br />30/10: Sicko (Moore, 20007): [****]<br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>31/10: Miller's Crossing (Coen, 1990): [****]</strong></span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>31/10: Rebel Without a Cause (Ray, 1955): [****]</strong></span><br />31/10: Chicken Run (Lord/Park, 2000): [***1/2]<br /><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><br /></span><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;"></span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-9029345271322700992?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-78487259377269069322007-10-02T11:03:00.001-04:002008-03-17T21:53:03.540-04:00<a href="http://bp0.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/RwJeYi86pFI/AAAAAAAAAA8/z9FEJ0j-LMY/s1600-h/amyadams.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5116755902438483026" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp0.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/RwJeYi86pFI/AAAAAAAAAA8/z9FEJ0j-LMY/s400/amyadams.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><div align="center"><strong>Amy Adams</strong><br />as</div><div align="center"><em>Ashley Johnsten</em></div><div align="center">in</div><div align="center"><strong>Junebug (2005)</strong><br /><br /></div><div>Don’t think for a moment that I had overlooked some of those great supporting female performances that have cropped up in the last 6 years or so. They deserve to be recognized just as much as main leading actresses do and sometimes even manage to steal the spot-light altogether. This is such the case with Amy Adams from Phil Morrison’s debut film <strong><em>Junebug</em></strong>. She plays Ashley, a high-spirited young woman from a small town in North Carolina who is in the last stages of her pregnancy. She couldn’t be more thrilled to have a baby and along with her uncontrollable eagerness to finally meet her brother’s new fiancé, Ashley is on the verge of hyperventilating from all this excitement. Right when we first meet her, her shining optimism and wide-eyed innocence is infectious – it’s hard not to fall in love with her, albeit not instantaneously. Ashley may not be the most sophisticated of people and she starts out as annoying with frivolous questions and juvenile behavior. As the story progresses her immaturity translates into adorable charm and conclusively to sole wisdom as tragedy strikes a low blow to the family. There is a real star-quality to Amy Adams and whenever she isn’t on screen, the film feels that it is lacking a little spark. The rest of cast also does superb work in bringing depth to their characters through subtlety although it is Adams who goes one step further to delicately engage the script bringing her character to life and make it completely her own. She’s a one woman show, authentic and with plenty of talent to spare.<br /><br />There’s a terrific scene where Adams proves why she was nominated for an Oscar that year. Ashley’s conceited husband who does actually love her even though he isn’t particular good at showing it is downstairs while there is a baby shower celebration going on upstairs. He knows that his wife has affection for mongooses and flipping through the channels he stumbles upon a wild-life documentary on the animal. He quickly scrambles to find a VHS tape to record it and is unsuccessful. Screaming in frustration causes quite a stir to the upstairs festivities and Ashley comes down to see what the entire ruckus is about. In a film that could easily fall into cliché, you would expect Ashley to be furious with her husband for disrupting her guests but the filmmakers opt for a more simplistic alternative that reveals a great deal about the couple without saying much. She faces him and simply says, <em>“God loves you just the way you are. But He loves you too much to let you stay that way.”</em> Ashley says these words to him with utter warmth rather than conviction as a way of expressing how his irritable behavior has been since the beginning of the pregnancy; his displeasure at the soon future prospect of being a father. Her optimism becomes the driving force of the entire film and Adams sells every moment. This is the kind of performance you won’t soon forget.</div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-7848725937726906932?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-70392535084560277902007-09-30T00:19:00.000-04:002007-09-30T00:27:31.547-04:00<div align="center"><a href="http://bp3.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/Rv8lCC86pDI/AAAAAAAAAAs/-TWvrE3KeHQ/s1600-h/SoriMoon.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5115848418798511154" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_kf-SfBNgspU/Rv8lCC86pDI/AAAAAAAAAAs/-TWvrE3KeHQ/s400/SoriMoon.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><strong>So-ri Moon</strong></div><div align="center">as</div><div align="center"><em>Gong-ju Han</em></div><div align="center">in</div><div align="center"><strong>Oasis (2002)</strong></div><div align="center"><br /></div>We all know how Hollywood has a soft-spot for actors who portray mentally or physically disabled characters and their sympathy usually translates into countless praise and even awards come Oscar time. There isn’t any doubt in my mind that if Chang-Dong Lee’s <strong><em>Oasis</em></strong> had a wider American distribution around the time of its release, the lead actress So-ri Moon would have been nominated for an Oscar. She did go on to win several awards at various film festivals for her performance so at least somebody out their thought it was praiseworthy.<br /><br />Moon plays a young woman with cerebral palsy and loses herself completely in the role you’d think she actually suffered from this crippling disease. She must have spent plenty of time researching the part in order to prepare for such a demanding task. Her behavioral patterns are spot on including all of those disjointed muscle spasms where the legs and arms become stiff and awkwardly contracted. To quote Woody Allen from his film Annie Hall: “I feel that life is divided into the horrible and the miserable. That's the two categories. The horrible are like, I don't know, terminal cases, you know, and blind people, crippled. I don't know how they get through life. It's amazing to me. And the miserable is everyone else. So you should be thankful that you're miserable, because that's very lucky, to be miserable.” That pretty much sums up my feelings towards her character.<br /><br />It’s a shame that the actual film doesn’t do Moon’s performance justice. It’s overlong with questionable intentions on the part of the director and a last act that completely falls apart in its absurdity. Personally, I felt Lee went overboard by treating his protagonist in the most cruel ways possible as a means of drawing sympathy from the audience when she really didn’t require it because anyone with a little bit of heart is going to feel empathy towards her, regardless. Criticisms aside, Moon’s performance along with her tender relationship with the central male protagonist prevents Lee’s film from being a total catastrophe and totally makes it worthwhile.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-7039253508456027790?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-73510594448187077972007-09-28T10:28:00.002-04:002008-03-25T14:36:30.293-04:00<a href="http://www.cranfordchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/st_imeldastaunton_2.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.cranfordchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/st_imeldastaunton_2.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><div align="center"><strong>Imelda Staunton</strong><br />as<br /><em>Vera Drake</em><br /></div><div align="center">in</div><div align="center"><strong>Vera Drake (2004)</strong></div><div><br />If it weren’t for her role in the newest installment of the Harry Potter franchise as high inquisitor Dolores Umbridge, most people would be asking “who the hell is she?” Watching <strong>Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix </strong>and then <strong>Vera Drake</strong> back-to-back made me reconsider Imelda Staunton in a whole new light. It’s amusing how she plays polar-opposites; the latter being a cruel, and pompous authority figure in the same vein as Margaret Thatcher dressed in fluffy pink outfits. The former role being that of warmth and kindheartedness whose sense in fashion reminds me of clothes my grandmother would wear. Imelda Staunton is one of Britain’s finest actresses working today with an extensive career in television and has appeared in several low-budget British films. Her versatility remains her greatest strength, a gifted character actor able to tackle any role with ease. Staunton is a scene stealer in every sense of the word, capable of causing those around her to seem vastly inferior.<br /></div><div><br>Her role as the title character in Mike Leigh’s <strong>Vera Drake</strong> garnered her first Oscar nomination and rightfully so. If it were up to me, she would beaten Hilary Swank that year and taken that Best Actress Oscar home to place on her mantle piece. I don’t mean to discredit Swank’s work in Eastwood’s Million Dollar Baby because she held her own and redeemed her otherwise lackluster career. Staunton on the other hand is simply incredible; pushing the boundaries of dramatic acting to a whole new level without going over-the-top. Anyone can cry on screen but to make it feel genuinely honest is another story altogether.<br /></div><div><br>Taking place in early 1950’s Britain, Vera Drake is a benign philanthropist with a heart of gold. She’s a loving mother and wife, takes care of the disabled and her elderly mother without nary a peep. She also makes an honest living working hard at her day job as a maid cleaning rich people’s houses. Vera is the type of mother we all wish to have; a gentle spirit providing food on our plates and endless nurturing love. Of course, there has to be a catch – no one is that perfect. She has a separate life that her family knows nothing about. In her spare time Vera performs illegal abortions, except not for profit. Surely someone of such compassion for the welfare of others wouldn’t dare commit these crimes? And therein lays Leigh’s dilemma that he poses towards the viewer. Are we to feel sympathy for a woman who breaks the law because she feels that what she is doing is benefiting these young girls and also happens to be a sweet old lady who wouldn’t hurt a fly? Or does she deserve to be punished regardless of her intentions? There is a tragic scene where Vera confesses to her husband about carrying out these abortions and her emotional break-down is devastating. The fate of Vera Drake I dare not reveal here although it does make for interesting discussion on the morality of her actions.</div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-7351059444818707797?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-31610096100643653152007-09-27T17:40:00.001-04:002008-03-25T14:31:58.282-04:00<a href="http://www.uwo.ca/french/films/Film%20Images%202007-2008/La_pianiste_2.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.uwo.ca/french/films/Film%20Images%202007-2008/La_pianiste_2.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div align="center"><strong>Isabelle Huppert</strong><br /><em>as </em><br /></div><div align="center"><em>Erika Kohut</em><br />in<br /><strong>La Pianiste (2001)</strong></div><br />If there was ever a female performance from this decade that deserves to be more recognized, it’s Isabelle Huppert from Michael Haneke’s sexually charged psychological drama <strong>La Pianiste</strong>. The plot unfolds in an atypical manner, keeping the audience in the dark while at the same time methodically peeling away layer after layer of subtext. The final shocking revelation at the end of the film opens the door for a wide variety of interpretations and adamantly insists on a complete reassessment of everything prior to this moment. Haneke is constantly challenging the viewer on an intellectual level and those unwilling to invest a little bit of brain-power will find this film to be an unpleasant experience to sit through. There is pandering to a certain degree on Haneke’s part but it is done in such a captivating and thought-provoking way so as to not be a major distraction.<br /><br />Furthermore, it is Isabelle Huppert who has this unspeakable transfixing power that makes it difficult to keep one’s gaze off of her. She plays Erika Kohut, a highly respected piano teacher who champions a strict attitude towards her students. Her profession is more of a false projection of her true self because outside of the classroom she is one creepy lady. Just to give you a taste of her perverse disposition – she goes to a drive-in movie theatre and masturbates to a young couple having sex in the backseat of a car. Or how about when she goes into an adult-movie store full of male customers, enters one of the private booths and watches porn stoically while sniffing the tissue paper of discard ejaculation. This is only the tip of the ice-berg concerning Haneke’s sadistic agenda as he has his heroine sexually pursue one of her male students resulting in a vicious and uncompromising depiction of male/female gender roles and masochism.<br /><br />I honestly can’t think of a more disturbing female character than Erika Kohut and it is because of Hubbert’s skillful ability to present such a repressed individual that Haneke’s message is given a heightened intensity. Huppert’s character doesn’t actually say much but the way Haneke analyzes her with his camera angles and shot compositions suggest that she is constantly at war with her inner demons. Rarely has an actor managed to disguise aggressive sexual tendencies as chillingly as Huppert in this film. She is an emotionally disturbed woman who represses a shady past along with sado-masochistic desires. Her actions take on a moral complexity and it is fascinating to try and understand what possibly could have triggered such erratic behavior. I can only image what conclusions a psychiatrist would arrive at if she were a patient.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-3161009610064365315?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-61709161414636993272007-09-26T14:29:00.003-04:002008-03-22T18:57:11.299-04:00<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/10/20/me_and_you_wideweb__430x265,0.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/10/20/me_and_you_wideweb__430x265,0.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><div><div align="center"><strong>Miranda July</strong><br /><em>as </em></div><div align="center"><em>Christine Jesperson </em></div><div align="center"><em>in</em><br /><strong>Me and You and Everyone We Know</strong> (2005) </div><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div><br />As this list progresses, Miranda July’s performance in her debut film <strong>Me and You and Everyone We Know</strong> will seem like an anomaly. That isn’t to say that she doesn’t deserve recognition for her work here, far from it. In retrospect, her position feels justified despite being overshadowed by the female powerhouses preceding her but what makes July so special is the way she brings an inimitable personality to the role. With experience in performance arts, her filmmaking style embraces this unique art-form allowing for immeasurable creativity. The narrative is breezy and unprecedented full of colorful characters that speak, behave and react to various situations in ways that we do not anticipate. To label the film an exercise in quirkiness (a cringe-worthy term) would be to turn a blind-eye to the infusion of charming poeticism and deep-rooted sincerity that permeates every frame. July has crafted what I believe to be one of the best films of the decade; an entertainingly insightful film on 21st century living that also happens to be profoundly moving. </div><div></div><div></div><div><br />That’s enough gushing about the film for now. Let’s get to brass-tacks and focus on July’s actual performance which is essentially what this thread is all about in the first place. She plays Christine, a coy, beautiful young woman who is a struggling artist who has a part-time job as taxi-cab driver for seniors. The plot focuses on several different characters as well who interweave throughout each other’s lives often in unpredictable ways but ultimately, it is Christine who remains the focal point with whom everyone else is connected. Her eccentricities eventually lead her to Richard, a shoe-store employee whom she quickly develops a strange relationship with. The emotional highs and lows of unrequited love are portrayed by July with such jubilant earnestness and soft heartache. In a film packed with memorable moments, she and Richard share a tentative stroll down a street that is so inventive and charming that it words cannot do it justice. Pay attention to July’s expression as she awkwardly confesses her true feelings towards him as they make their way to the end of the street. It confirms an actress with the ability to naturally convey true sensationalism without coming off as phony. </div><div></div><div><br />July also has knack for comedy although not in the traditional sense. Christine is a peculiar character who seems to be in her own little world and it is through her strange antics that July’s sense of humor shines. It’s not so much a physical type of comedy as it is observational humor. There’s this naivety and childlike playfulness to July that she utilizes to her benefit and this makes her genuinely funny. She brings a fresh sense of absurdity and seriousness to her role in one of the most stunning debuts in recent years.</div></div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-6170916141463699327?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-15416203570654853262007-09-26T11:43:00.005-04:002008-03-22T18:50:39.423-04:00To spice up this blog which seems to have been taking a nosedive in quality recently, I've decided to take on this challenge. A buddy of mine from Rotten Tomatoes is taking care of of the top 25 male performances and you can check out our thread <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=584585">here</a>. As a rule, only one role per actress is allowed. The compilation of this list was of a complex nature involving various criteria including screen prescence, emotional range, charcteriztion, my level of obsession with said actress and other enigmatic imperatives. It's a subjective list of actresses who have left a considerable impression on me. I don't expect many of you to agree with my selections so try not and get upset if one of your favorites has been left out. Comments are always welcome. Enjoy!<br /><br />25. <a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2007/09/25-female-peformance-miranda-july.html">Miranda July in Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005)</a><br />24. <a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2008/03/19-renee-zellwegger-bridget-jones-diary.html">Renee Zellweger in Bridget Jones's Diary (2001) </a><br />23. <a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2007/10/19-female-performance-bryce-dallas.html">Scarlett Johannson in Lost and Translation (2003)</a> <br />22. <a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2007/09/22-female-performance-so-ri-moon.html">So-ri Moon in Oasis (2002)</a><br />21. <a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2007/10/21-female-performance-amy-adams.html">Amy Adams in Junebug (2005)</a><br />20. <a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2007/09/23-female-performance-imelda-staunton.html">Imelda Staunton in Vera Drake (2004)</a><br />19. <a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2007/09/24-female-performance-isabelle-huppert.html">Isabelle Huppert in La Pianiste (2001)</a><a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2008/03/19-renee-zellwegger-bridget-jones-diary.html"><br /></a>18.<br />17.<br />16.<br />15.<br />14.<br />13.<br />12.<br />11.<br />10.<br />9.<br />8.<br />7.<br />6.<br />5.<br />4.<br />3.<br />2.<br />1.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-1541620357065485326?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-23135242977864497642007-09-25T13:40:00.000-04:002007-09-25T13:49:10.491-04:00<a href="http://blog.dvdideas.com/images/High_Fidelity.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://blog.dvdideas.com/images/High_Fidelity.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />This is from 2004. Feel free to poke fun at its wretchedness.<br /><br />Here we are again with another delectable romantic comedy starring none other than John Cusack who has established himself as one of todays leading actors for this genre. Adapted from the popular novel from British author Nick Hornby, Cusack plays Rob, a cynical thirty-something year old bloke who is a complete music geek and owns his own record shop. When the story begins he has just broken up with his long time girl-friend Laura (Iben Hjejle) and handles the situation by recounting his Top 5 most memorable break-ups. He is fond of making lists, not only for displaying his musical interests but also as a way to organize his life. Personally, Rob is one of the most identifiable characters that I have come across in the movies. We seem to have a lot in common and the striking contrasts are uncanny. We have both gone through some rocky relationships, making lists of everything has become a sort of ritual and if you replace his obsession over music with movies, that is pretty much me in nutshell.<br /><br />Being a huge fan of the book, I was surprised in how well they kept faithful to the source material even though the setting of London was changed to Chicago which is not a big deal at all. John Cusack even collaborated on the screenplay which is very well written, sharp, clever, humorous, and flows consistently. The use of voice-over-narration is well done and having Cusack look straight into the camera and talk to the audience (adopted from Woody Allen's character Alvy Singer Annie Hall) is also helpful in engaging the viewer with him on a more personal level. The use of flash-backs as Robs narrates his earlier relationships with other women is insightful and quite funny at times as well.<br /><br />His two best friends Dick (Todd Louiso) and Barry (Jack Black) work for him in the store and they are also music snobs. Lousio plays the perfect loser while Jack Black is hysterical and steals every scene he finds himself in. Black is playing his same eccentric self but this time around he doesnt come off as annoying. Instead, because of the great script, he is able to spit out lines that are so funny and his wacky behaviour is a complete riot. Black also gets the oppportunity to display his singing voice by and the man definately has some talent in the vocal department.His rendtion of Marvin Gaye's famous love song "Let's Get it On" is one of the many highlights of this movie.<br /><br />There is one scene in particular that really stands out in its comedic hilarity (it always manages to put me in stitches) but also captures an all too real situation that everyone can relate to in one way or another. Laura's new boyfriend Ian (Tim Robbins with a ponytail) visits Rob at his record shop and tells him to stop stalking them. He responds with a simple ok and Ian leaves. It then cuts to three different scenarios of the same awkward situation that are imagined by Rob in what he should have said or done to Ian at that particular moment. Not only is it very funny but also quite identifiable. How many times have we all been in some sort of situation where we acted a certain way and reflecting on it later, realizing that the outcome could have been completely different if only we conducted ourselves in another way? Personally, I have been in this situation so many times before and witnessing Rob going through the same feelings of regret is comforting.<br /><br />Affable and full of wit, <strong>High Fidelity</strong> manages to balance comedy with drama so elegantly. Rob's story is so absorbing that carries a sense of pathos as the audience is pulled directly into his life. He is a confused, jaded and frustrated man who just wants to make up with his girlfriend but in the process, embarks on a journey of self-discovery. The break-up with Laura sends him searching for meaning in his life that just seemed to resonate with me. The problems he has to face and his experiences in dealing with life carry a strong sense of honesty and are completely understandable. The replay value is through the roof and seems to improve with increased viewings. If you love music and romantic comedies, <strong>High Fidelity</strong> should not be missed.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[****]</strong></span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-2313524297786449764?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-80456384527154661572007-09-14T22:57:00.000-04:002007-09-14T23:00:16.683-04:00<a href="http://agenda.liternet.ro/imagini01/spider1.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://agenda.liternet.ro/imagini01/spider1.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>The human mind is a fragile nervous system of complex interconnected neurons firmly constructed similar to that of a “spider-web” that even with the slightest disruption can cause the structure to collapse. David Cronenberg’s Spider showcases one of the most successful deconstructions of mental illness that I have seen in my short time as a cinephile.<br /><br />In a tour-de-force performance, Ralph Fiennes plays Dennis “Spider” Cleg, a disturbed man suffering from schizophrenia in the search of answers concerning his shady past as a young lad growing up in a small town in England. Sent to a safe-house for the mentally unstable, he spends most of his time in isolation; cooped up in a small, barren room intensely pouring over a small diary full of random symbols continuously mumbling incoherent thoughts. The story is told from Cleg’s distorted perspective which consequently brings into question whether or not his account is true or just a fabrication of his mind playing tricks on itself. This dichotomy allows for a fascinating subversive examination of psychosis.<br /><br />Thankfully, Cronenberg is able to work with one of the most versatile actors in the industry and it is through Ralph Fiennes’ uncanny ability to portray a severely conflicted individual with perfect nuance and pathos that allows the poignant story to unfold in a deeply thought provoking manner. He spends the majority of the film mumbling his speech, staring wide-eyed as if on the verge of discovering something profound and yet, seems completely on the edge of sanity. It is a quiet, subdued performance where Fiennes relies more on his body language to convey his emotions. His behavioral patterns are spot-on, convincingly depicting a mentally unstable man struggling to overcome his affliction to make sense of the past. Rarely has an actor managed to step this deep into the murkiness of insanity as compellingly as Fiennes in this film. </div><div> </div><div><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[***1/2]</span></strong></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-8045638452715466157?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-16241974811960673652007-09-03T21:24:00.000-04:002007-09-30T10:10:15.793-04:0003/09: The Prestige (Nolan, 2006) - [** 1/2]<br /><br />It was okay. The twisting plot is compelling but strays almost into self-parody as Nolan tries to outsmart the audience with double-crosses and various acts of deception. The whole film unfolding like that of a magic trick is a nice touch but the story then becomes way too calculated. As clever and cunning as Nolan's film is, it seems to outsmart itself in the final act revealing a twist that is downright silly and completely undermines the rivalry between the two magicans. Other than Scarlett Johannsen, the cast is perfect (even David Bowie makes a memorable appearance) and the production values are top notch. I only wished by the end when all the cards and layed on the table, that I actually cared about what had transpired.<br /><br />03/09: Brick (Johnson, 2006) - <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[****]</span><br /></strong>04/09: Saved! (Dannelly, 2004) - [***]<br /><br />Saved! is one of the smarter high-school satirical offerings of recent memory and succeeds laregely on the fact that it manages to walk a tight rope in dealing with Christianity without being offensive. In lesser hands, it could have easily exploited the Christian faith to generate laughs but the filmmakers decide to take a more informal approach with sprinkles of light humor and well-drawn characters. It wasn't pro-Christian either as it clearly questions God's existence. If anything, the film is more about 'faith' and what it means to be a good person. Or at least, that's what I took from the film.It can also be appreciated as a great high-school comedy with the whole social cliques and observant teenage behaviour. Mandy Moore really surprised me with her sinister performance as the 'Queen Bee', similar to the Rachael McAdam's character in Mean Girls. Overall, the film was a charmingly witty take on Christian virtues via a high school setting that took a major risk that paid off in spades.<br /><br />04/09: Little Children (Field, 2006) - [**]<br />05/09: Dead Man's Shoes (Meadows, 2004) - [***1/2]<br />05/09: <em>The Hudsucker Proxy (Coen, 1994) -</em> [<strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">****</span> (M)</strong>]<br />08/09: Black Snake Moan (Brewer, 2007) - [**]<br />11/09: Spider (Cronenberg, 2002) - [*** 1/2]<br />11/09: I Heart Huckabees (Russell, 2004) - [*]<br /><em>12/09: In American (Sheridan, 2002) - </em>[<span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>****</strong></span>]<br />12/09: The Station Agent (McCarthy, 2003) - [***1/2]<br />12/09: The Passion of the Christ (Gibson, 2004) - [*]<br />13/09: Knocked Up (Aptow, 2007) - [***1/2]<br />13/09: Bloody Sunday (Greengrass, 2002) - [***1/2]<br />13/09: Little Manhattan (Levin, 2005) - [***]<br />14/09: The Squid and the Whale (Baumbach, 2005) - [***1/2]<br />15/09: Far From Heaven (Haynes, 2002) - [<span style="color:#ff0000;">****]</span><br />15/09: The Black Book (Verhoeven, 2006) - [***1/2]<br />16/09: The Piano Teacher (Haneke, 2001) - [**]<br />17/09: Red Road (Arnold, 2006) - [*1/2]<br />18/09: Dancer in the Dark (Trier, 2001) - [<span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>****</strong></span>]<br />18/09: Junebug (Morrison, 2005) - [***1/2]<br />18/09: The New World (Malick, 2005) - [<span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>****</strong></span>]<br />18/09: Marie Antoinette (Coppola, 2006) - [***1/2]<br />18/09: Maria Full of Grace (Marston, 2004) - [***1/2]<br />19/09: Morvern Callar (Ramsay, 2002) - [<span style="font-size:85%;">1/2</span>]<br />19/09: Away From Her (Polly, 2007) - [***1/2]<br />19/09: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (Yates, 2007) - [***1/2]<br />23/09: Kings and Queen (Desplechin, 2004) - [**]<br />25/09: Vera Drake (Leigh, 2004) - [***1/2]<br />25/09: Oasis (Lee, 2002) - [**1/2]<br />26/09: Once (Carney, 2006) - [***1/2]<br />27/09: The House of Mirth (Davies, 2002) - [***]<br />27/09: Sympathy for Lady Vengeance (Park, 2005) - [**]<br />29/09: Lilja 4-ever (Moodysson, 2002) - <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[****]</span> </strong><br /><span style="color:#000000;">29/09: The Departed (Scorsese, 2006) - </span><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[****]</strong></span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-1624197481196067365?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-45580648258227044882007-09-01T21:20:00.000-04:002007-09-01T22:14:34.208-04:00My brief hiatus from blogging was caused primarily by work, the show <em>Dexter</em>, procrastination and a little vacation that I took to get away from my dank dungeon that I like to call my basement. I will be returning to my rigoruous movie-watching within the next few days (most likely Monday and Tuesday since those are my two days off) with some brand new spankin' reviews. I still need to reach 80 movies for my challenge so if you want to recommend more films, that would be greatly appreciated. Hope you all had a great summer! The fall movie season is about to begin...<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-4558064825822704488?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-90002456672451152552007-08-21T11:22:00.000-04:002007-08-21T11:31:19.123-04:00<div align="center"><a href="http://www.melbournecinematheque.org/special/images/blue1.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.melbournecinematheque.org/special/images/blue1.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:78%;">Julie (Binoche) takes a moment to reflect on her past.</span> </div><div align="center"><br /></div><div align="left"><em>Recommended by Ali</em><br /><br />Where has Juliette Binoche been hiding all my cinematic life? She’s a naturally beautiful woman who could pass as Audrey Tautou’s older sister and although her radiance is captivating, the sensitive performance she delivers in this film is even more striking. I am now very curious to seek out other films she has appeared in because this is one talented actress. She carries the entire film on her delicate shoulders with such residual melancholic perseverance. Binoche has this soft, unspoken fragility about her; an almost angelic quality with glowing porcelain skin and bright hazel eyes. Her portrayal of a woman with deep unsettling grief is nothing short of dazzling. The way she bottles up her tormented feelings is gripping to say the least; Binoche’s luminous eyes and pretty face expressively depicting an emotionally scarred individual unable to come to terms with tragedy.<br /><br /><strong>Bleu</strong> is the first of Krzysztof Kieslowski's Trois Couleurs trilogy followed by Blanc and Rouge which represent the three colors of the French national flag. The color blue itself is strongly used as a form of symbolism throughout the film whether it through lighting, lens flares and even as an editing tool to transition scenes which reminded me of Bergman’s use of the color red in <strong>Cries and Whispers</strong>. Viewed as an allegory, the narrative of Bleu represents liberty; a word possessing several definitions depending on the context. What exactly is Kieslowski trying to say about the liberties of human individualism? Is he talking about liberty in a political sense or is it strictly personal? You decide.<br /><br />Classical music plays an integral role on both the narrative and aesthetic level. Julie (Binoche) is the wife of a famous composer and is also a professional musician. After losing her young daughter and husband in a tragic car accident, she feels that the only rational thing to do now in order to deal with the grief is to run away to start a new life. The pain is just too great and Julie wants to isolate herself as far away from society as possible. Leaving the past behind is not a healthy way of coping with calamity especially when those withdrawn feelings have a nasty habit of finding their way back to the surface. The story is rather trite and simple in structure but the themes are richly conceptualized. Kieslowski is more interested in focusing on Julie’s internal struggles and the creation of mood.<br /><br />One of the ways he lucratively explores these two various aspects is with the use of music in an unorthodox fashion. In the traditional sense, the score of a film is usually edited seamlessly to compliment the images but in this film, Kieslowski deliberately draws attention to the way in which music affects audience perception. He does use it for continuity purposes to create mood but often edits it isolated away from the story-action as a way of communicating Julie’s state of consciousness or to audibly convey her feelings at a specific time. As a predominantly quiet film with characters speaking in hushed voices, the random insertion of a forceful classical piece of music can be slightly jarring. There are also several scenes of Binoche trying to work something out in her head when all of a sudden there is a quick fade to black -- possibly suggesting a state of un-consciousness as the beautiful melodies strike up to powerful crescendos.<br /><br />Calmly observant, Kieslowski’s style of filmmaking is relatively tame but ironically enough, completely mesmerizing. His camera techniques and use of color are alluring in an absorbing kind of way making it difficult to turn away from the screen. His camera remains mostly static as if patiently waiting to capture the perfect moment. His affection for Binoche is apparent in the way he uses many close-up shots of her beautiful face (hell, if I was making a movie with her, I’d use nothing but close-up shots). There are also several extreme close-up shots of her eyes where you can actually see the dilated pupils. It’s almost as if Kieslowski is trying to pierce directly into his protagonist’s soul to release her from the aching burden that haunts her.<br /><br />Ending the film with a biblical proverb set to operatic vocals seems very fitting and brings the film’s themes full circle. Perhaps it all comes together a little too neatly but that’s hardly an imperfection. The final image is bittersweet and will no doubt leave a lasting impression. It is just simply beautiful. This is a near flawless film that is subversive in its artistic approach of narrative as well as showcasing one of the best female performances of the 90’s. Bravo.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[***1/2]</span></strong></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-9000245667245115255?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-82282497862805942272007-08-18T18:45:00.000-04:002007-11-07T09:16:01.353-05:00Ccompiling arbitrary lists especially revoling around films is an amusing obsession of mine and it's about time I started posted some of these. Before we get started, let me acknowledge that I am borrowing this idea from <a href="http://moviemoxie.blogspot.com/2007/07/list-of-101-films-i-cant-believe-i.html">Shannon the Movie Moxie </a>and it would only be fitting if I didn't pimp her cool film blog. Check it out.<br /><br />This list will be a helpful way of prioritizing films that I have embarassingly neglected to see for one reason or another. I will also be taking a total of <strong>30 recommendations</strong> from you kind readers so if there are films that you deem to be "essential viewing" that has not appeared on my list, feel free to use the comment box to let me know your suggested proposals. My goal is to watch all these films within one year's time and to provide a review (no matter how short, for each one). The worse case scenario being I will just have to fill in the remaining gaps if there aren't enough recommendations from you folk, so I urge you to please send your favorite film titles my way. I will list 30 films to start (in no particular order) and hopefully with your involvement, I can reach my goal of 60. Depending on the number of responses I may expand the list so it all depends on you generous people.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Edit:</strong></span> I apologize for not providing a general idea of films I am in dire need of viewing. Here's a few directors that I need to see more work from: Kurosawa (seen only 1 of his), Bergman, Bresson (Seen nothing), Rohmer (Seen nothing), Sirk (Seen nothing), Ozu (Seen nothing), Altman, Antonioni (Seen nothing), Fellini, Hal Hartley (Seen Nothing), Almodovar, Errol Morris (Seen nothing), Melville (Seen nothing), Kieslowski (Seen nothing), Cronenberg, Fueller (Seen nothing), I'm a big fan of romances (go ahead, laugh) and take a particular liking to costume dramas/period pieces. The horror, kung-fu and musical genre are fair game because I have seen very little of these type of films. Thanks again!<br /><br />1. Paris, Texas<br />2. <del>Rebel Without a Cause</del><br />3. <del>Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid </del><br />4. Last Temptation of Christ<br />5. Spirit of the Beehive<br />6. Seven Samurai<br />7. Ikiru<br />8. Persona<br />9. All About Eve<br />10. The Sweet Smell of Success<br />11. Lawrence of Arabia<br />12. Gone With the Wind<br />13. M<br />14. Sherlock, Jr.<br />15. A Streetcar Named Desire<br />16. It Happened One Night<br />17. Bridge on the River Kwai<br />18. Midnight Cowboy<br />19. Rashomon<br />20. Metropolis<br />21. Rosemary’s Baby<br />22. In A Lonely Place<br />23. Blue Velvet<br />24. The Insider<br />25. The Battle of Algiers<br />26. <del>The Third Man</del><br />27. Halloween<br />28. Five Easy Pieces<br />29. McCabe and Mrs. Miller<br />30. <del>Pleasantville</del><br /><em>31. Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (Recommended by Justine)<br />32. To Be or Not to Be (Recommended by Justine)<br />33. Portrait of Jennie (Recommended by Justine)</em><br /><em>34. Wit (Recommended by Krissie)</em><br /><em>35. The Blue Angel (Recommended by Mango)</em><br /><em>36. The Man with the Movie Camera (Recommended by Mango)<br />37. Chimes at Midnight (Recommended by Mango)<br />38. The Seventh Seal (Recommended by Shannon)<br />39. La Strada (Recommended by Shannon)<br />40. Three Women (Recommended by Ali)</em><br /><em>41. Apu Trilogy (Recommended by Ali)</em><br /><em>42. Diary of a Country Priest (Recommended by Ali)</em><br /><em>43. <a href="http://lemonzreviews.blogspot.com/2007/08/bleu-kieslowski-1993.html">Blue </a>(Recommended by Ali)</em><br /><em>44. White (Recommended by Ali) </em><br />45. Red (Recommended by Ali)<br /><em>46. Autumn Sonata (Recommended by Ali)</em><br /><em>47. Wages of Fear (Recommended by Ramses)</em><br /><em>48. Gosford Park (Recommended by Krissie)</em><br /><em>49. Wild Strawberries (Recommended by RC)</em><br /><em>50. In America (Recommended by RC)</em><br /><em>51. Talk to Her (Recommended by The Metalhead)</em><br /><em>52. F For Fake (Recommended by The Metalhead)</em><br /><em>53. Wings of Desire (Recommended by The Metalhead)</em><br /><em>54. Oasis (Recommended by JediMoonShyne)</em><br /><em>55. Memories of Murder (Recommended by JediMoonShyne)</em><br /><em>56. The Host (Recommended by JediMoonShyne)</em><br /><em>57. Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter ... and Spring (Recommended by JediMoonShyne)</em><br />58. Brazil <em>(Recommended by DJ Rkod)</em><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><em></em><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-8228249786280594227?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-91356332880371053182007-08-13T10:58:00.000-04:002007-08-14T09:58:49.603-04:00<a href="http://www.lazydork.com/movies/waitingguffman.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.lazydork.com/movies/waitingguffman.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><em>"Well, then, I just HATE you... and I hate your... ass... FACE!"</em></div><div> </div><div></div><div><br>The "mockumentary" is not a genre that I am particulary aversed to. Christopher Guest has created a reputatation for himself over the years by embracing this style of filmmaking and <strong>Waiting for Guffman</strong> was my first exposure to his work. Full of colorful characters, spot-on-humor and even its short run time (84 minutes), offers up more laughs than most mainstream comedies released today could ever dream of. It takes a certain level of creative finesse to make a successful mockumentary because one mistep could potentially lead to the downfall of the film. To be more specific, by crafting a fictionalized story within the confines of a documentary format requires that the film be grounded in a believable reality so the audience can take it seriously without straying into farce. Christopher Guest and co-writer Eugene Levy have done just that without being condescending to their characters who could have have become a parody of themselves. Even though this is a comedy, <strong>Waiting for Guffman</strong> remins genuinely heart-felt despite all the hilarious shenanigans with real characters who very well could exist in this small American town. With a witty and hilarious script crackling with spontaneous moments of comedic bliss, this is a fresh, funny little film for those looking for something different than your typical run-of-the-mill comedy.</div><div></div><div><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[*** 1/2]</strong></span></div><div></div><br><div><strong>MirrorMask</strong> (McKean, 2005)</div><div></div><div>Imagine if Tim Burton directed Alice in Wonderland on acid and you get the idea of what your in store for. With a modern twist on the popular fairy-tale, McKean and writer Neil Gaimen craft a gothic fantasy of a young girl named Helena who finds herself stuck in an alternative universe where everyone including abnormal creatures that seem straight out of a <strong>Nightmare Before Christmas</strong> wear ominous masks. Much like Alice, she wants to find her way home and bumps into a wild bunch of eccentric characters along the way such as the fast-talking Jester named Valentine who becomes a close ally and helps her to carry out an important task that threatens the very balance of this new world. The further she travels, the weirder the inhabitants and places become. Unfortunately, the story is hollow and confusing with too much time devoted to the haunting, creative visuals which is what essentially keeps the film interesting. </div><div></div><div><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[**]</strong></span></div><div></div><div><br><strong>A Bittersweet Life</strong> (Kim, 2005)</div><div></div><div>I want my two hours back. A silly revenge tale of style over substance with good intentions that starts off strong and then dwindles into stupidity soon after. Fans of <strong>Oldboy</strong> should get a kick out of this violent chaotic film that tries too hard to be cool with something important to say about the gangster lifestyle only to be nothing more than an empty bloody affair. The action is entertaining enough with a great score that is used effectively. Too bad the story is laughably idiotic with an ending that doesn't feel warranted. </div><div></div><div><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[**]</span></strong></div><div></div><div><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;"></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;"></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="color:#333333;"></span></strong></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-9135633288037105318?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-43506043430518421302007-08-12T00:19:00.000-04:002007-08-12T08:09:24.424-04:00<a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ews1.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/ews1.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Few director's have been able to match the successful creative output of Stanley Kubrick and as his final film before passing away, it is safe to say that <strong>Eyes Wide Shut</strong> was a perfect swan-song from one of Cinema's greatest filmmakers. On a technical level, the film is just brilliant but the story itself which unfolds as a nightmare of sexual awakening is emotionally gripping as a slow-burning portrayal of one man's struggle to come to terms with his wife's devastating confession. The narrative is a sexual odysey of sorts incorporating elements of an erotic thriller full of fantasy, illusions, conspiracies and dreams with a sucker-punch of an ending that <div><div>leaves plenty to think about.</div><div><br />Kubrick's masterful directing abilities are on full display and the way he frames each and every scene is truely remarkable. He has such a keen eye for maximizing space with particular emphasis on specific lighting techniques in order to set the appropriate tone of his scenes. I also love Kubrick's long tracking shots and appreciate the way he takes such painful effort to make sure that the each scene is meticulously crafted to serve its given purpose. Much of the film takes on certain dreamlike qualities through Kubrick's absorbing visuals that mesmerize and stimulate the senses. </div><div><br />Both Cruise and Kidman deliver outstanding performances and even the supporting players like Sydney Pollack bring their A-game. I actually think Tom Cruise delivers the strongest perfromance of his career. For all those naysayers who think he's nothing but a talentless actor and merely a pretty boy obviously haven't seen this film. He shows plenty of restraint in his solemn demanor to effectively convey a sexually frustrated individual who finds himself in a compromising predicament (which I dare not reaveal here) brought on by his own misunderstanding to satisfy the sexual and emotional desires of his wife. Cruise understands his character thoroughly and it clearly shows even when there isn't any dialogue being spoken. The intensity of his facial expressions and the way he handles key melodramatic moments in the film are handled compellingly. </div><br /><div>Flawless in execution with enticing visuals, packing powerful performances and a bizarre seductive plot-line; this is the type of sensual and affecting story that seems like an anomaly from all the dreck that comes out of Hollywood these days. Moreso, it proves how talented Sanley Kubrick really was as a director, inspiring a new generation of filmmakers. He was a true auteur whose prescence is severely missed.</div><br /><div><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[**** (M)]</span></strong></div><br /><br /><div></div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-4350604343051842130?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-46118837147526083842007-08-10T22:43:00.000-04:002007-08-10T22:46:58.838-04:00<a href="http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/1786/oceans1101hc3.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/1786/oceans1101hc3.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>Finally got around to watching this film all the way through and even though the ending had already been semi-spoiled for me (caught glimpses of it on tv several times), I still had a blast. Not a dull moment and Soderbergh directs his crime-caper in such a way that it exudes cool in every frame. It doesn't try to be anything more than an entertaining heist film which it manages to deliver in a rewarding fashion. </div><br /><div>With such a large cast of actors, it was surprising how everyone involved managed to make the best of their precious screen-time. Danny Ocean (George Clooney) has just been released from prison for robbery and quickly feels the need to put together another heist into action as a way to chase away his guilt for getting caught last time. He meets up with his old crime buddy Rusty Ryan (Brad Pitt) and pitches him the idea. How can Ryan back down when the jackpot is $150 million if the robbery is successful? Knowing full well that they are going to need more people than the two of them, they persuade 9 other con-men/tech wizards to try and pull off one of the most daring heist jobs ever: To rob not one, but three Las Vegas Casino's owned by the cold-hearted Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia) in one night. If that wasn't enough, these particular casino's have some of the most tightest security measures set in place making it that much more difficult to breach for the crew. The task at hand seems next to impossible with cameras everywhere, DNA passcodes from employees needed to enter certain restricted areas, advanced motion detectors, secuirty guards with heavy weaponry and not to mention: the access codes to the vaults change every two hours. Yikes! Talk about an impossible task. To complicate matters further, Danny Ocean's ex-wife Tess (Julia Roberts) happens to be a curator for Benedict's casinos and this conflict of interest threatens to jepordize the sting operation. The whole relationship angle isn't clunky and actually services the story. </div><br /><div>Though it is fairly obvious that the film can only end one way, the outcome is cleverly executed that may even surprise some of the more skeptical of viewers. Ocean's Eleven is a harmless Hollywood affair that is quite amusing if one is willing to go along with it. Big names, high stakes, great entertainment. What more could you ask for? </div><br /><div><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[***1/2]</span></strong></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-4611883714752608384?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-77109177565021389272007-08-10T00:31:00.000-04:002007-08-10T00:59:46.552-04:00<a href="http://media.movieweb.com/galleries/3213/2308/lo/cod.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://media.movieweb.com/galleries/3213/2308/lo/cod.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>Pulsating with a hypnotic visual style, David Slade's directorial debut is a fascinating psychological thriller that is difficult to shake off and demands discussion afterwards. Revolving pre-dominately around two main characters, a film like Hard Candy lives or dies based on its two lead performances because it is so self-contained. Luckily, Ellen Page and Patrick Wilson are outstanding here. They both accomplish to portray deeply flawed individuals on such a humanistic level which is important for a film of this nature which attempts to achieve a sense of realism.</div><br /><div>Without spoiling too much of the plot, I'd just like to point out the general set-up that Slade and writer Brian Nelson have prudently crafted. Haley Stark (Page) is a bright and articulate 14 year old girl and Jeff Kohlver (Wilson) is a photographer in his early thirties who meet in an internet chat room. They decide to meet face-to-face at a local coffee house and from the first couple of scenes there is something disturbing about this situation. Right away they seem to form a connection whilst engaging in conversation about normal stuff like food, literature, music, movies. Brian Nelson has a real knack for dialogue and it flows naturally with a great sense of palpability. After having a good-time drinking coffee lattes and eating desert, they both decide to take a ride to Jeff's house. Ok, now it seems pretty obvious where the film is heading. A cute young girl gets into a car with a total stranger who takes her to his house because she is interested in viewing his photography. This can only lead to more serious consequences for Haley who is now in the domain of a potential sexual predator, right? Wrong. The film refuses to deal with the delicative subject matter of pedophilia in a predictable way and there is a clever twist that allows the filmmakers to flex their creative muscles. </div><br /><div>A visceral film dripping with atmosphere, Slant employs a lot of detail towards lighting to emphasize the sense of space, mood and character expressions. There are plenty of close-up shots and he makes sure that the lighting is just right to capture the facial expessions of his characters to the fullest extent. Every twitch of emotion on the face is capatured beautifully. There's a scene where Jeff stoically breaks down with a small tear trickling down his cheek and Slades manages to frame the shot expertly using the lighting to vividly portray this raw emotional force. Many of the shots inside the house (the pre-dominant setting) take on a slightly darker tone with little shades of sprinkled sunlight seaping in through the closed blinds. It's an effective stylistic choice because once again, it adds an even more sense of verisimilitude. </div><br /><div>Utterly absorbing in its creation of tension, Slant places the viewer at the voyeruistic forefront of this intense scenario. Uncompromisingly sadistic, some scenes are not for that faint hearted. Disturbing and a little over the top but the violence works within the context of the story. </div><br /><div>Despite its complexities, the film is rather sublte in approach. Not a lot of questions are answered and there is plenty of room for interpretation. Slade does an excellent job of not taking taking sides or presenting everything in black-and-white which I thought was admirable. He leaves it up to the viewer to form their own conclusions about what is being presented. Essentially, Hard Candy is an intense character study about identity, moral ambiguity and revenge although, one could argue that it isn't necessarily about any of those things at all. </div><br /><div>Not enough can be said about Ellen Page's brilliant performance. Sure, Patrick Wilson is fantastic here but she completely steals the show. Page makes this challenging role seem like a piece of cake. I haven't seen her in anything else but if this film is any indication of her acting abilities, she definitely has a bright future ahead of her. At the beginning of the film she is calm, collected and plays it very sweet with a hint of charm. At the pivtoal turning point in the film there is a full reversal and we get to see a whole different side of the character where Page really stretches her acting abilities. Much like Haley, Ellen Page does seem quite mature for her age Even if the subject matter turns you away, this film is worth a viewing for Ellen Page's performance alone which stands as one of the strongest of 2005. </div><br /><div><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[***1/2]</span></strong></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-7710917756502138927?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-43977886131637162622007-08-09T10:42:00.000-04:002007-08-09T10:57:48.590-04:00<a href="http://www.hiponline.com/reviews/movies/s/stranger-than-fiction.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.hiponline.com/reviews/movies/s/stranger-than-fiction.jpg" border="0" /></a>It's so refreshing to see a romantic comedy with a unique vision that offers much more than your typcial cliche genre conventions. Featuring one of the most clever premises in recent memory, Marc Foster has crafted a warm love story wrapped in a plethora of creative ideas. Not only does this film showcase Will Ferrell's best performance in a role that is unlike anything he has ever tackled before but also proves to the movie-going public that he can handle more dramatic material convincingly. I was skeptical at first as to whether Will Ferrell would be able to restrain himself as an actor but it didn't take long to realize that he can actually give Carrey or Sandler a run for their money in a serious role. He's able to portray such a sympathetic character and it's astonishing how a great script can transform an actor. <div><div><br /><div>The film has a very unique narrative in that it is a story within a story, within a story (if that makes any sense) and similar to Kaufman's <strong>Adaptation</strong>, it's explores the difficulties of the writing process. However, it differs by focusing much more of its attention on the fictional characters created by the author. Or more specifically, the protagonist of the fictional work. Harold Crick (Ferrell) is an IRS agent who lives a very lonely and routine life who is unaware that his every move is being dictated by a higher power. No, not God (although one can make that distinction); but a female author (played by Emma Thompson). Being the fictional character in a story that she is writing about, he starts to hear her narrating his life in his head and panics like anyone in this particular situation would. In the mean time, he becomes smitten with a beautiful tatooed baker named Ana Pascal (Maggie Gyllenhaal) with an attitude problem since he is in investigating her tax reports. She initially gives him the cold shoulder for being an auditor but even she can't resist his good nature and begins to fall for him. Gyllenhaal has a certain sweetness about her that is infectious and she is just so darn likeable here. </div><br /><div>There's a real sense of pathos here stemming from these wonderfully drawn characters. Without giving much more of the plot away, the film unfolds in an unpredictable fashion as Crick discovers to finally live for the first time in his life once the barriers within his constrained universe begins to crumble. Even though the last act didn't particularly work for me because of its contradictory nature (which I am coming around to appreciating the more I dwell on it), the film was still a fascinating character study and the contrast between fiction and real-life is handled magnificently. I took a particular liking to the use of religious parables but that is only one interpretation that the film offers. There's much going on beneath the surface and audiences can take so many different things away from it. Simply put, an astounding film that I can see returning to in the near future. </div><br /><div><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[***1/2]</span></strong></div></div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-4397788613163716262?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-52173824323915826712007-08-09T00:23:00.000-04:002007-08-09T01:05:50.931-04:00Shocking, I know. For the longest while I have been using the the 1-10 grading scale which has worked like a charm but I will now be using the four-star systematic rating scale. Why the the sudden switch you ask? Three simple reasons: 1) More accurate. 2) Makes it easier to organize film ratings in a massive database that I am slowly working on. 3) Worth a try.<br /><br />If you take a quick glance to right side of the blog there is an explaination of my new rating scale that I will be using from now on. Sorry for the inconveinance.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-5217382432391582671?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-53880896724714715012007-08-07T15:41:00.000-04:002007-08-07T16:39:16.521-04:00<a href="http://www.toastedpixel.com/comic/alienfashions/theylive.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.toastedpixel.com/comic/alienfashions/theylive.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong><span style="color:#000000;"></span></strong></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-size:180%;">10 Reasons Why You Need to Watch <em>They Live:</em></span><br /></div><br /><div>10. It's fuckin' hilarious.</div><br /><p>9. Clever social/politcal satire.<br /></p><p>8. Horrid acting.</p><div>7. Roddy Piper gets thrown out of a glass window apartment complex high above ground level only to walk away with a limp.</div><br /><div></div><div>6. Roddy Piper walks into a bank with a shotgun and goes ape shit.<br /></div><div><br />5. Pure 80's cheese.</div><div><br />4. It stars the awesome Rowdy Roddy Piper.<br /><br />3. Special sunglasses reveal the true society people are living in which happens to be controlled by hideous creatures from another planet using capitalist propoganda to brainwash everyone. How cool is that premise?</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><br />2. Roddy Piper and Kieth David beat the shit out of each other in an alley in one of the greatest fight scenes ever.<br><br></div><div></div><div><em></em></div><div><em>1.</em> <em>"I have come here to chew bubblegum or kick ass, and I'm all out of bubblegum."</em> Best. Line. Ever. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-5388089672471471501?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-54238376966500349112007-08-06T17:18:00.000-04:002007-08-13T08:42:14.102-04:00<a href="http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0208196/happy01.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0208196/happy01.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><div>What's with the commen trend of filmmakers having the last name Anderson? It just so happens that two of my favorite modern directors go by the same last name. With the discovery of this underseen gem by Brad Anderson, it is possible that he could potentially join them (I like to pretend that Paul W.S. Anderson never existed) to form a unified trio of talented young American directors with a creative voice all sharing that particular surname.<br /><br />I love stumbling across underseen gems like <strong>Happy Accidents</strong> that received little attention when it was released and seems to have been swept under the rug to the point of obscurity. That's a shame because here we have one of the best written, acted and affecting romances of 2000. Part comedy, drama and even a little Science Fiction, Anderson brings a level of freshness to a genre bogged down by cliches and has crafted something truely original. The film follows the highs and lows of a strange relationship between an emotionally fragile ESL teacher named Ruby (the gorgeous Marisa Tomei) and an eccentric man named Sam (Vincent D'Onofrio) who claims to be a time traveler. With such an absurd premise, one would expect the film to crumble under the weight of it's on idiosyncracies. This is not the case. Anderson presents us with a refreshing romance full of whimsy and true human emotions between two individuals both searching for that special kind of connection that will bring some sort of satisfactory meaning to their otherwise messy lives. As banal as that may sound, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Anderson skillfully uses this cliched basic set-up to launch into a more detailed analysis of a disintegrating relationship and at the same time cleverly explore the fascinating concept of time travel. I'd classify this film in a similar categroy as Charlie Kaufman's <strong>Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind</strong> which contains sci-fi elements but is more of a poignant love story. There are no special effects used here and the film is completely character driven relying more on dialogue and personal interactions to express it's themes and meditation on relationships. The script is wonderfully written filled with natural dialogue, witty banter, along with plenty of technical jargon and philosophical debates concerning various aspects of traveling through time.<br /><br />Tomei and D'Onofrio have great chemistry and it's a pure delight to watch them bring such genuine emotion and intellectualism to their roles. While I found D'Onofrio to be charming in his quirky sort of way, it is Marisa Tomei who truely shines as the vulnerable Ruby. Her insecurity, naivity and one too many heart-breaks have left her in complete distress. She would like nothing more for this relationship with Sam to work out in the end. Unfortunately, he complicates matters and still she can't help but love him despite the constant embarassments in order to avoid the harsh reality of being alone. Ruby spends most of her time trying to figure out of Sam is telling the truth or is just making up his elaborately detailed story just so he can sleep with her. She finds herself breaking down into tears through frustration and even goes beserk at times when she can no longer handle Sam's irrational behaviour. Tomei is totally convincing in these dramatic scenes and she's beautiful and charming enough to cheer on despite her flaws. </div><div><br />The main strength of this film comes from the strong emotionally complex performances from the two leads and Anderson's clever script that deals with far more than just two people falling in love. By putting a spin on the idea of coincidence and fate through a sophisticted plot of time travel, Anderson somehow manages to tie up all the loose threads in a pitch-perfect ending which is a testament it his creative writing abilities. A true rarity that begs to be seen. </div><br /><div><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[***1/2]</strong></span></div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-5423837696650034911?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-10539257003341833682007-08-06T11:54:00.000-04:002007-08-09T01:44:38.184-04:00<a href="http://www.danheller.com/Movies/RoadToPerdition/CN-462-9A-big.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.danheller.com/Movies/RoadToPerdition/CN-462-9A-big.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div></div><br /><div>With his stunning debut <strong>American Beauty, </strong>Sam Mendes burst onto the Hollywood scene much to the surprise of many and proved that he was a fresh new talent with a bright future ahead of him. With his second film <strong>Road to Perdition</strong> he proves that his over-night sensation was no fluke. Here we have a director who embraces the craft of story-telling with a striking visual palette. Even though his depression-era gangster film treads familiar ground, his creative sensabilities as a story-teller come across with striking veracity. As a quiet film that takes it's time to establish the characters, the narrative hurls along at a steady pace and remains fascinating throughout.<br /><br />Much of Sam Mendes' sophmore effort owes much of its success to the fabulous score by Thomas Newman which swells and chimes with such passionate grace and of course, the awe-inspiring cinematography by the late Conrad L. Hall.<br /><br />Brilliantly composed without becoming too overbearing, this is one of those memorable scores that perfectly compliments the story-action by adding another layer of poeticism. Mendes does a commendable job of not falling prviy to over-dramatization by using the score in a bombastic fashion. Instead, he finds the right balance of subtlety and uses Newman's beautiful music to set the tone of the scenes.<br /><br />Road to Perdition is also cinematographer's wet dream. This was the last film Conrad Hall worked on before passing away and it safe to say he went out in a blaze of glory. The use of dark lighting is mighty impressive along with the entire look of the film which is highlighted mostly in shadows. Many scenes take place in heavy rain-fall where Mendes and Hall are able to frame some of he most visually stunning sequences in recent memory. The final show down near the end of the film that takes place in a serious down-pour is destined to become one of those iconic scenes that filmgoers will admire for years to come. The way Mendes meticulously structures the unfolding of the climactic gun-battle along with Hall's keen eye for establishing atmosphere is so beautiful executed that mere description cannot do it justice.<br /><br />As visually stunning as Road to Perdition is, the wonderfully told story of revenge and the love between father and son don't get lost amidst all of the vivid imagery. The film does contain plenty of stylized violence but it doesn't take center stage. The heart of the story is between the relationship between a professional hit-man named Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) and his son Michael Jr (Tyler Hoechlin). The supoorting cast are also superb including the always magnificent Paul Newman, Jude Law, Daniel Craig, Jennfier Jason Leigh and Dylan Baker. Most surprising to me was the talent of the young actor Tyler Hoechlin who is able to convey a wide range of emotions and actually brings a level of depth to his character without falling into the stereotypical role of the obnoxious older son vying for the father's love.<br /><br />Standing out from the pack of countless gangster films because of the emphasis on an actual story and not just the body count, <strong>Road to Perdition </strong>is able to achieve a level of greatness that few within the genre are able to reach. It accepts the violent nature of the ganster picture without sacrificing narrative and thus, remains thoroughly entertaining along with being quite moving. This is just remarkable filmmaking of the highest order.<br /><br /></div><div></div><div><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>[****]</strong></span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-1053925700334183368?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-4509382626048218242007-08-05T22:07:00.000-04:002007-09-01T22:45:05.863-04:0005/08: Harold and Maude (Ashby, 1971) - <strong>8.0 [2nd]</strong><br />06/08: Road to Perdition (Mendes, 2002) - <strong>9.5</strong><br />06/08: Happy Accidents (Anderson, 2000) -<strong> 9.0</strong><br />06/08: They Live (Carpenter, 1988) - :P<br />07/08: The Dreamers (Bertolucci, 2003) - <strong>6.0</strong><br />07/08: Stroszek (Herzog, 1977) - <strong>9.0</strong><br />08/08: The Iron Giant (Bird, 1999) - <strong>10.0</strong><br />11/08: Almost Famous (Crowe, 2000) - [***1/2]<br />11/08: Eyes Wide Shut (Kubrick, 1999) - [**** (M)]<br />13/08: Waiting for Guffman (Guest, 1997) - [***1/2]<br />13/08: A Bittersweet Life (Kim, 2005) - [**]<br />14/08: American Splendor (Berman/Pulcini, 2003) - [****]<br />20/08: Bleu (Kieslowski, 1993) - [*** 1/2]<br />21/08: McCabe &amp; Mrs. Miller (Altman, 1971) - [***]<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-450938262604821824?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-68936839226515435202007-08-05T19:43:00.000-04:002007-08-05T19:58:18.350-04:00I've been slaving away at my dead-end job and now that my boss is going away on vacation the hours have been piling up. Huzzah! The closest I actually came to watching a film was last night with <strong>City of Lost Children. </strong>Unfortunately, exhaustion quickly set in from working all morning and I could barely keep my eyes open. From the small amount that I actually got to watch before stumbling upstairs to bed was fantastic. Can't wait to get around to finishing it. I did manage to do a little more blind-DVD shopping and welcome the following to my collection:<br /><br />1. Spoorloos (The Vanishing)<br />2. Black Snake Moan<br />3. Dead Ringers<br />4. The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser<br /><br />I'm broke.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-6893683922651543520?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-63751117204961909512007-07-30T12:57:00.000-04:002007-08-09T02:16:18.143-04:00<a href="http://twi-ny.com/dogville.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://twi-ny.com/dogville.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Wow. Just wow. I'm too stunned to offer any kind of coherent thoughts right now other than it was a mightly blow to the gut and a fascinating piece of cinema unlike anything I have ever seen before. How's this for starters. The entire film takes place on a giant sound-stage with crude props (ex: the various houses are one dimensional in structure like you would find in a stage theatre production, trees, plants and even the dog are outlined in chalk) representing a small town in the middle of no where. The vulnerability of the setting makes the story much more raw and intimate. These are simple folk living peacefully in harmony but when a beautiful stranger wanders into their isolated quiet community there is a ripple effect of consequences that threaten to disrupt the established stability and unravel the ugly truth of humanity. Trier's unflinching assault on the so-called "American dream" is bitter and will no doubt upset many viewers who many not agree with the nihilistic approach.<br /><br />I'm having difficulty deciphering Lars Von Trier's intentions since Dogville is open to a vast array of interpretations. Personally, it is most effective as a moral case-study in identity and broken promises. There is much to be admired in Trier's unique aesthetic as well as story-telling abilities. John Hurt's impeccable narration aids in driving the narritive forward at a brisk pace, offering witty insight and observation of the town and its people. Despite being 3-hours long, the film is surprisingly entertaining not just from a technical standpoint either. The actual story itself is engrossing by posing a host of complex moral dilemmas and ideals that are interesting to think about. There are also the terrific performances by the entire cast with Nicole Kidman stealing the spot-light as Trier's heroine who is nothing short of extroardinary. A challenging, disturbing and unforgettable film with a shocker of an ending that is bound to raise a few eye-brows.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[****]</span></strong><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-6375111720496190951?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-9158120715569664242007-07-28T22:52:00.000-04:002007-08-09T09:58:36.260-04:00<a href="http://thecia.com.au/reviews/t/images/turtles-can-fly-lakposhtha-ham-parvaz-mikonand-8.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://thecia.com.au/reviews/t/images/turtles-can-fly-lakposhtha-ham-parvaz-mikonand-8.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><p><strong></strong></p><br /><p>Just a few half-ass thoughts before heading off to bed. Bahman Ghobadi's <em>Lakposhtha hâm parvaz mikonand</em> or translated as <strong>Turtles can Fly</strong> tosses us into a world of politcal crisis, despair and shattered lives all through the perspective of children making this anti-war film even more harrowing.</p><p>Taking place somewhere in a remote village in Iraq on the brink of Saddam Hussein's fall from power and the U.S. occupation, the film follows a group of orphaned children living in horrific conditions. They understand that there is a war coming very soon and with the lack of parental supervision, these kids are left to survive on their own. It is also especially dangerous when your surrounded by mine-fields and closed in by barbed wire making it seem like a barricaded concentration camp. If that couldn't be any more depressing, the rainy and damp weather really don't help matters either.</p><p>This is not a war film in the sense that there are big battle scenes, outbursts of military warfare and nor is it overtly political despite the reverbating undertones. The focus is an intimately portrayal of young children caught smack dab in the middle of a country on the verge of collapse. The primary concern being the harsh realities that these kids need to face each day and the shocking after-effects of an undemocratic society where there is danger around every corner. At times heart-breakingly overwhelming, there is also a fair dosage of humor and joyfulness that balances out the discouraging gloom. It encourages one to step outside of the box and consider the Iraq war from an innocent child's point of view which could have easily failed in the process if the child actor's were not convincing. As non-professional actors, these kids are completely natural because they can bring their real life experiences to their respective roles since many of them were born and forced to survive in this Hell. A completely underrated film that deserves notice.</p><p><span style="color:#ff0000;">[***1/2]</span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-915812071556966424?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-67487596196685399732007-07-27T12:16:00.000-04:002007-08-09T10:23:39.409-04:00<a href="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005EBSF.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005EBSF.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div></div><br /><div>Been on a bit of a Bergman kick lately and although <em>Cries and Whispers</em> doesn't quite reach the brilliance of <em>Fanny och Alexander </em>(doubtful many other films ever will), it is still quite an accomplishment by the Sweedish master. It's a cold, sterile, emotionally devastating film with haunting imagery and some very strong performances by the lead female actresses. The story takes place entirely within a large mansion circling around a dying woman who is being watched over by her two pompous sisters and their affectionate maid. The entire film bleeds the color red with all its metaphorical implications concerning the human heart and death. The interior decorating of the house is entirely red from the ceilings, walls, floors and even most of the furniture. The claustrophobic setting of pulsating red color schemes effectively contrast with the clothing of the sisters who are dressed predominantly in white. Bergman hits his message home even further in the editing process by using red to transition from scenes with fade in and fade outs. The heavy dose of symbolism does get a tad repetitive though.<br /><br />There aren't many smiles or happy people found in this film. The suffering of Agnes (Harriet Andersson) as she succumbs to death is deeply tragic and distrubing. She is mostly restrained to the bed, often shrieking in pain. The inevitable is soon approaching and Agnes has accepted her fate. On the other hand, her two sisters are visiciously cold-hearted unable to fully process their sister's death and selfishly lash out at each, digging up old wounds in order to settle unresolved family issues. Anna the maid is the only person that remotely possesses human compassion and her kind-hearted nature generates much warmth amidst all of the cynical misery of the household. Even though the the relationship between the three sisters recieves the most attention, Anna's role is significant in displaying Bergman's themes of death in a relgious context.</div><div> </div><div>The use of flash-backs are slightly jarring and I could have sworn the actress that played one of the sisters was a stand in for the matriarch of the family which confused me to no end. Though beautifully shot, <strong>Cries and Whispers</strong> left me fairly indifferent save for the final few scenes which allows Agnes a bittersweet farewell as she reflects on a happy memory of spending the day with her two sisters and Anna in the park on a beautiful day in Summer. If only the rest of the film leading up to this epiphany were as rewarding.</div><div><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[***]</span></strong></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-6748759619668539973?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-84774182182101392802007-07-26T22:49:00.000-04:002007-07-26T22:59:40.543-04:00Seriously, it's an addiction. I Blind-buy DVD's faster than I can actually watch them. Here's the newest haul:<br /><br />1. Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring<br />2. Boys Don't Cry<br />3. The Good Girl<br />4. Solaris (Clooney one)<br />5. Brokeback Mountain<br />6. Rashomon<br />7. Primer<br /><br />Feel free to rate my newest purchases.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-8477418218210139280?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-36292907709731014902007-07-25T13:55:00.000-04:002007-08-19T08:18:54.931-04:00<a href="http://www.ledoux.be/decentra/images_cat/Fanny%20och%20Alexander%201.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.ledoux.be/decentra/images_cat/Fanny%20och%20Alexander%201.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>Bergman has never been a director that I instantly warmed up to. Sadly, I have never actually been able to finish one of his films before turning them off; that is until now. <strong>Fanny and Alexander</strong> is a towering behemoth of a film clocking in around five hours that I found to be a lot more inviting (more than one may suspect judging by its immense length) than his previous films which were impenetrable to me. </div><br /><div>Part ghost story, part family saga, this is an epic story in the grandest sense that deals with deeply complex philosophical debates of human existence and universal truths/falsities all seen through the eyes of children; or more specifically, Alexander. I'm not sure why his sister Fanny is included in the title since her role is very small and many of the key scenes revolve around the perspective of the young boy Alexander but that is besides the point. Bergman shapes his film around the innocence of children in order to tackle some very heavy subject matter such as death, religion (more specifically the existence or non-existence of God) and relationships. I am now beginning to see the clearer picture as to why Woody Allen is so attracted to Bergman's work and he may have borrowed a little conventional wisdom and influence from this particular film especially in relation to his 1986 masterpiece <strong>Hannah and her Sisters.</strong></div><div></div><div><br />A film of striking beauty with elaborate set design, props and costumes, Bergman's use of mise-en-scene is breathtaking. His camera-work is nothing short of extroardinary as it gracefully flows throughout the massive corridors and rooms of the Matriarch's mansion (where most of the story-action takes place) but he also shows great restraint using extended long-takes mostly when it comes to characters giving monologues or to intensely focus on important story-action. The cinematography by long time collaborator Sven Nykvist is simply gorgeous adding a vibrant palette of color schemes to suit the atmosphere which undergoes a dramatical shift between the first and second half of the film.<br /></div><div>A unique experience unlike anything else, <strong>Fanny and Alexander</strong> takes on a spirtual illusiveness whereas one side of my brain was trying to follow the plot and its vast array of characters (Dickens would be proud) while the other side was intensely focused on deciphering and debating the religious connotations suggested by Monsieur Bergman that seemed to transcend time and space. I don't particularly recommend watching this film in one sitting because it can be exhausting albeit an exhilirating one at that. At the end my brain felt completely wracked and a shifting perspective of life itself had invariably taken place. Worthy of the utmost praise, Bergman has crafted a beautiful and existentially profound film with the utmost care that only a true-master of the medium can. A fucking masterpiece if I ever saw one.</div><br /><div></div><div><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[**** (M)]</span></strong></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-3629290770973101490?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-3266558272464451672007-07-25T00:06:00.000-04:002007-07-25T01:08:36.711-04:00At precisely 10:31 pm, I finished reading <strong>Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows</strong>. I'm feeling mixed emotions right now and can barely muster up the enthusiasm to write this entry. Today marks the beginning of the end and since my time is limited now so I must be brief. I'm overjoyed to having finally discovered how the story ends but there is also this deep sadness knowing that there will be no more Harry Potter books and that my time is up.<br /><br />To me these not just works of literature that you read once and dispose after you turn the final page. The Harry Potter books are quintessentially why I'm still alive. Many people have the Bible as their book of comfort but for me,it has always been the Harry Potter books that. In no way am I suggesting the superiority of Rowling's series over the importance of the bible but I cannot ignore the fact that it prevented me from committing suicide four years ago. I distinctively remember being moments away from doing something truely horrible when suddenly everything changed after seeing a copy of Order of the Phoenix on the ground in my room. At this point in time I had already read all five Harry Potter books and thought they were decent but hadn't really considered them to be anything special and could barely remember anything that happened in them. I'm so glad I picked up the book and started reading at that precise moment because soon after I was convinced that killing myself would result in me not finding out how the story ends. After I finished OoTP in a few days I went back to book 1 and started reading the series again which was an amazing experience. Rowling's universe is so inviting and I loved getting sucked into her world and following the adventures of the boy wizard and his two friends. All of my problems vanished as I read and a huge burden was lifted off my shoulders. My anger melted away (at least temporarily) and nothing else mattered. As long as the Harry Potter books were within my grasp, I was safe. Unfortunately, such great forms of escapism cannot last forever and today is where it all comes to an end. Self-consciously I knew that post-poning my original plans by using the Potter books as a diversion could only last until I had finished reading the 7th book and now that this day has come, its hard not feeling distraught and frustrated.<br /><br />Spreading my reading across 4 days insteading of rushing allowed me to bask in all its splendid glory. Rowling does an excellent job of wrapping up the series and even includes a bittersweet epilogue which many would find cheesy but was actually quite heart-warming. Bless you J.K. Rowling for writing such an amazing story and reminding me what it's like to be happy again.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-326655827246445167?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-26160648824878616502007-07-23T18:36:00.000-04:002007-07-25T01:01:30.062-04:00<a href="http://www.tvshowsondvd.net/graphics/news3/BigLoveSeason1.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.tvshowsondvd.net/graphics/news3/BigLoveSeason1.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br />If you thought managing one wife was stressful enough, try three. A polygamist named Bill Henricksen (Paxton) and his three wives Barb (Jeanne Tripplehorn), Nicolette (Chloe Sevigny) and Margene (Ginnifer Goodwin) along with all their kids are living in the suburbs. It's an odd premise that's ripe for drama and controversy. HBO took a real gamble with this show which almost pays off. Almost. Prior to this show the idea of polygamy was an alien concept and if there's one thing I have learned from watching it is that there is no way I'd be able to follow "the divine principle" of polygamy despite the idea of having the opportunity to sleep with three different wives sounds appealing. There's a misconception that the show makes clear which is that not all polygamists are sex hounds.<br /><br />The acting all around is fantastic and it was also nice to see a few familar faces from <strong>Veronica Mars </strong>such as Mac, Beaver and Lily. My problem with this show is that it didn't really leave a lasting impression, several episodes were trivial and the season finale was predictable from a mile away. I don't regret watching it but don't think I'll be rushing out to see Season 2.<br /><br /><strong>6.0</strong><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-2616064882487861650?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-41113498500789640952007-07-23T10:24:00.000-04:002007-08-09T10:25:06.243-04:00<a href="http://pics.kinokadr.ru/films/s/shortbus/shortbus_poster1.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://pics.kinokadr.ru/films/s/shortbus/shortbus_poster1.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><br /><div></div><br /><div>SEX. It's everywhere you look. The internet is a breeding ground for pornography, sex is used strategically in marketing and advertising campaigns (the infmaous "sex sells"), sex scandals in the media are frequent along with strong emphasis on celebrity love lives. Contemporary society seems obsessed with "sex" and yet it still remains a sensitive subject for most people. Understandably so, it is a delicate divisive issue with so many different viewpoints and it is no surprise that John Cameron Mitchell's (<em>Hedwig and the Angry Inch</em>) lastest work was met with much controversy. Many labeled it as an excuse for him to exploit pornography and it makes me wonder if these people actually watched the film before making such a ridiculous claim. It's true that there are plenty of hardcore sex scenes and Mitchell doesn't shy away from explicitly (and I strongly emphasis this word) showing people engaging in various sex acts.<br /></div><div><br />The opening scene is that of a young man masterbating and then giving himself fellatio until he climaxes into his mouth. It then cuts to a couple in the heat of passion going at it wildly on top of a piano followed by a BDSM session. These are real people that are actually having sex and the camera is not positioned in such a way to create an illusion that these "actors" are pretending to have sex. But isn't that what pornography is? Filming people in real time having sex for others to watch as a way to achieve sexual gratification? Yes, that may true but Mitchell isn't interested in pornography. That's better left for the adult entertainment industry. Instead, he is interested in voyeruism, the role of sex in contemporary society, and how it influences relationships with gentle hints of a post/911 setting.</div><br /><br /><div>Following the lives of several New Yorkers which include a sex therapist unable to have a an orgasm, a gay couple struggling to make their relationship work and a dominatrix with a tender heart all trying to deal with their frustratated sex lives. Most of the action story place at an underground sex-club and it is here where the group of friends experience their sexual awakenings. Much of the cast are non-profesional actors which was quite surprising because all of their performances are outstanding. The Altmanesque paradigms are clearly evident as Mitchell follows around his group of characters in a self-contained fashion. He does an excellent job of avoiding artificiality and as a result, takes on a very raw mentality. Intent on creating the most realistic portrayal possible of crestfallen individals hiding behind a facade who are searching for a way to feel sexually liberated, the film is heart-wrenching in its depiction of fragile individuals on the brink of cracking at any moment. As each of the main group of characters slowly open up about their true feelings and desires the film completely switches gears replacing the fascination of sex with humanism. Mitchell is able to achieve something extroardinary here because everything feels so personal. His critique on the difficulties that sex or sexual identity brings to relationships becomes even more poignant this way. A daring and provocative film that is sure to turn heads, <strong>Shortbus </strong>can be uncomfortable to sit through at times but totally rewarding in the end.</div><br /><div><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">[***1/2]</span></strong></div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-4111349850078964095?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-20597474921942858042007-07-22T20:44:00.000-04:002007-08-09T10:39:02.433-04:00<a href="http://www.fipresci.org/world_cinema/south/images/asia_thai_lastlife.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.fipresci.org/world_cinema/south/images/asia_thai_lastlife.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><div>At the 34 minute mark, the title of the movie randomly appears. What’s the specific purpose for inserting the title here and not at the beginning of the film? Is it actually significant? At first glance it seems pointless but upon further inspection, it actually serves as an indicator that there is something else at work here.<br /><br />Two lost souls intermittingly linked by tragedy form a close bond as they both deal with their grief and bitter loneliness. Slowly paced and meditatively somber, <strong>Last Life in the Universe</strong> owes much of its success to perfectly capturing the disconnectedness the two main characters feel with the rest of the world. Trapped, helpless and utterly alone, they would like nothing better than to just curl up and die. Suicide is an important topic of interest for Thai filmmaker Pen-Ek Ratanaruang and his position on the subject is murky. He does not champion and nor does he condemn it. The first scene quickly establishes the gloomy tone of the film as the camera slowly tilts upwards from scattered books on the floor revealing a dead man with a noose around his neck hanging from the ceiling. The way the director positions the camera and the accompanying understated score makes for quite the haunting image.<br /><br />Complete opposites, Kenji is as introverted OCD neat freak obsessed with suicide and Noi is a distraught chain-smoker trying to get away from a messy relationship with her boyfriend who is finding it difficult to accept the death of her sister. Their time spent together brings happiness to their otherwise bleak lives and allows them to ease the pain of their internal strife. There’s a poignant moment when Kenju and Noi are driving by the nearby beach with noise of the rushing waves creating a melancholic ambiance and he asks her: “Are you sad?” She responds simply with “Everybody is sad.” In my eyes, this scene represents essentially what Raanaruang is trying to achieve with his film. All human beings suffer through sadness and despair and although the prospect of suicide or running away from your past and just starting brand new is appealing, life isn't always that easy. Ratanaruang doesn’t give his two characters the satisfaction of achieving what he refers to as “bliss” and nor does he offer any easy answers. The film is vastly open-ended and a yakuza sub-plot further confuses matters. I found myself increasingly frustrated trying to figure out just what in the hell Ratanaruang was trying to get across with his film. No doubt it’s challenging requiring a fair amount of thought and those with short attention spans will probably find it wearisome. Personally, I found its contemplative nature compelling and the ending which is completely open to interpretation was stunning in its final few frames.</div><div><br />Fond of extended long-takes, Ratanaruang is a patient filmmaker who keeps his camera at a distance to establish mood and remind the viewer that they are observing the lives of two people who very well could be the last two people on earth making the best of whatever time they have left. Definitely a unique experience that is difficult to shake off.</div><br /><div><span style="color:#ff0000;">[***]</span></div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-2059747492194285804?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-12369747138984065032007-07-22T12:58:00.000-04:002007-07-22T13:24:56.795-04:00<em>Recently stumbling across a few old reviews which are laughably bad, I thought it would be interesting to post them over a period of time not only to make my blog seem more content heavy but to reflect on my writing to see whether or not it has gotten worse or improved over the years. Let's begin.</em><br /><br /><em>-------</em><br /><br />The large film movement going on in South Korean has been quite steadfast in releasing a multitude of films to contend with the foreign markets of movie production. This rapid output has resulted in a wide range of new talent and successful box office receipts and has proven to be quite adamant in bringing Korean cinema to mainstream audiences all over the world. <strong>My Sassy Girl</strong> happens to be one of the better films to emerge from this movement.<br /><br />Often bordering on the edge of improbability and complete lunacy, My Sassy Girl is nothing like your typical Hollywood romantic comedy. Despite its absurdity, the film manages to be remarkably tender and just a fun ride to boot. I’m tired of having to sit through romantic comedies that are so predictable and cliche. Boy falls in love with girl, insert montage of the couple holding hands walking on the promenade eating ice-cream set to a pop-song, they break up and then get back together. The End.<br /><br /><br />Surprisingly, this film is a breath of fresh air; one that manages to successfully take this genre to a whole new level without succumbing to the traps of cliché. Instead, Kwak does a full reversal on different cliches by making them whacky. Coincidence and chance are also used to a certain extent as a plot device without becoming too contrived. Running gags are used for comedic effect and more often than not, they work quite well in generating plenty of laughs. Sure, there may have been several missteps along the way but Kwak never loses sight of his vision to show that love is unpredictable and can be found between two radically different people even in the most bizarre of circumstances.<br /><br />Kyun-Woo (Tae-hyun Cha) is an engineering student who saves the life of a drunken girl (Ji-hyun Jun) from falling into an oncoming underground subway-car. Barely able to stand up straight and with her eyes rolling in the back of her head, she manages to make it onto subway and is mistaken by the disgruntled passengers as his girlfriend after she brings attention to herself by yelling at some of them including a man who won’t give up his seat to an old man. After throwing up on an elderly man with a toupee (which is grossly hilarious) and passing out on the floor she is mistaken as his girlfriend. He could have just left her lying unconscious on the dirty floor of the subway car and got off at the next stop but he decides take her to a hotel room to sober up. This voluntary gesture of kindness by Kyun-Woo reveals something about his character which will become important as the film goes on – his utmost devotion to a reckless girl who takes him for granted and treats him like a pile of dirt.<br /><br />Often, I questioned his motives for wanting to stay in a relationship with a girl who is clearly an out-of-control alcoholic but even when she is not drinking she is still a vindictive arrogant bitch. Besides the occasional death threat (“wanna die?”) or the physical abuse she inflicts on Kyun-Woo he still doesn’t give up on her because he wants to “heal her sorrow.” One gets the sense that deep down she is a genuine good person but is a troubled with a heavy conscience. As the film progresses, the reason for her obtuse behavior becomes more clear while Kyun-Woo has to put up with her crazy antics.<br /><br />“Quirkiness” would be an appropriate term for this film since the characters behave in a manner that seems irrational, especially the girl (she is not referred to by any first name) who is prone to outbursts of physical abusive to the protagonist Kyun-woo and verbally abusive to others. The two lovers also find themselves in the oddest situations such as being held hostage by a solider at an amusement park. They also engage in peculiar ways including one where she forces him to switch shoes because her feet hurt and he ends up walking around in high heels. Or how about the several times they play against each other in a game of squash but Kyun-Woo just keeps getting hit in the face with the ball. He can’t seem to get a break even when it comes to sparring in a Kento match where she inadvertently defeats him with one move. His suffering brought on by the girl is actually quite funny in an ironic sort of way.<br /><br />Rather unanticipated but creative nonetheless, there are two sequences that seem out of place but are wonderfully composed. The first one is a high-voltage action sequence which is quite impressive in terms of bullet-time and the second one is a samurai fight during the feudal era. They both do not occur in real time but play out in Kyun-Woo’s mind as he is forced by the girl (death threats again) to read her short stories. In his imagination, he and the girl are the main characters in the stories where each time she has to show her bravery and rescue him from peril. It’s ironic how he thinks he is the one who is trying to save her from self-destruction while she happens to the one who is actually saving him. At times, she is clearly a nightmare. He obviously can’t stand her presence and considers running away from her several times. But there is a paradox. When she is not with him, he feels confused and unsure of himself. Truth be told, it is a peculiar relationship where the more he dislikes her, the more he falls in love. I saw the girl as someone who provided a purpose for Kyun-Woo from his otherwise banal life.<br /><br />Far from revolutionary, the film may be a bit nutty at times but the romance feels genuine. There are a number of tender and sweet moments that bring a sense of exuberance. My favorite scene in the entire film just happens to be one of these moments and it is where Kyun-Woo pays a visit at the girl’s college lecture hall which is compromised of entirely females. She is playing Mozart’s Pachaebel in D Minor on the piano in front of her classmates and he walks in disguised as a delivery boy. Of course, he draws the attention of all the women, especially the girl who is in the middle of her composition. Even though he is nervous, he bucks up the courage and walks down on stage to give her a red rose. It is an emotionally gratifying scene where no words are exchanged. The actor’s rely purely on their facial expressions as they gaze at one another with a sense of joyful happiness; both struggling to keep in their tears. The audience erupts in applause and gives a standing ovation. Kwak directs this scene with such splendor elevating what could have just been a regular cliché scene into something really magical that had me clapping with the rest of the audience members as well.<br /><br />The film on a whole is wonderfully executed but it is the chemistry between the two leads which makes it work so well. However, Ji-hyun Jun is the foundation of the film’s success as the distraught girl. She is simply fantastic and delivers a wide-range of emotions convincingly. When she cries, you feel her pain. If she is acting disapprovingly or on one of her drunken rants, all that overburden of sadness coupled with grief feels so real. She is a tortured soul and Jun fleshes out her character with great veracity. I can’t recommend this film enough for those who are looking for something different from the ordinary fare of romantic comedies. Emotionally gratifying and often very funny, if you can find a copy of this film please don’t hesitate to give it a chance. You might be pleasantly surprised to find that there is a whole lot of filmmaking talent just waiting to be discovered from other foreign countries.<br /><br /><strong>8.0</strong><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><em>Review written September, 2005.</em><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-1236974713898406503?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-43691553755765287022007-07-21T21:58:00.000-04:002007-07-21T22:00:21.260-04:00<a href="http://papercuts.tscpl.org/UKDeathlyHallows.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://papercuts.tscpl.org/UKDeathlyHallows.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>Fuck Yeah.</div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-4369155375576528702?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-45246158455578039102007-07-19T00:37:00.000-04:002007-07-28T16:39:12.035-04:00<a href="http://www.national-student.co.uk/magazine/image/apocalypto_poster.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.national-student.co.uk/magazine/image/apocalypto_poster.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>Warning: <strong>Possible Spoilers!</strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><div></div><div><br /><br /><br />Mel Gibson is back in the directing chair after the much controversial <strong>Passion of the Christ</strong> and this time he's tackling the mythos of the Mayan culture. Or is he? Regardless of his intentions, it is clear that he is a skilled director capable of superb visual storytelling. Some accuse him of being obsessed with blood/gore and more interested in brutal carnage than telling an actual story. I disagree. Much like Peckinpah, Gibson uses violence in such a way that it isn't mere exploitation for "shock value" but rather as a form of expression. There may not be some deeply profound reasoning behind it other than for pure entertainment value which is all fine and dandy but for a film like <strong>Apocalyptico </strong>which<strong> </strong>concerns itself with aboriginal culture, acts of violence are vital to relgious beliefs as well as survival for this ancient civilization. Gibson isn't afraid to turn his camera away from the harsh practices of unspeakable acts committed by these people and anyone with weak stomachs are bound to feel squeamish. Take the Tenochtitlan/human sacrifice scene which shows how disposable other human beings are when it comes to pleasing the Gods. Decapitation and the extraction of live beating hearts (reminscent of Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom) in all its gory detail are on full display.<br /></div><div></div><div><br /><br />This is visceral filmmaking at its best that feels very raw because of its simple structure. As a well crafted piece of cinema, Gibson's film is bombastically intense that remains riveting from the first frame to the last. Comprisingly of non-professional actors, the basic plot revolves around the decaying Mayan civilization as famine plagues the land. Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood) belongs to a small tribe living in harmony deep in the the jungle far removed from the Mayans. Life is good, his hunting party take pride in collecting food and even joke around about the sexual dysfunction of one their members. The beginning starts off as very light-hearted but completely switches gear into much darker territory. What was once a peaceful group of people living together is shattered as their village is invaded by a clan of Mayans who murder, rape the women and capture many as prisoners. Luckily, Jaguar is able to keep his pregant wife and son safe by lowering them into a giant hole in the ground before getting captured himself. Taken to the ancient Mayan temples to be sacrificed to the Gods, Jaguar manages to escape and now has to race against time to save his family still trapped in the hole as well as trying to out-run a brute-squad of Mayan warriors led by Big Boss Nasty who are chasing him down. </div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><br /><br />Gibson has some real skill behind the camera and along with his cinematography Dean Semler, they use the gorgeous back-drop of the large jungle as a playground for one of the most suspenseful and exhilariting chase sequences I have ever seen. It's a shame that Gibson's personal life overshadowed this film causing it to make peanuts at the box-office and was barely recognized at the Academy Awards except for sound editing and make-up which are trivial categories. It should have undoubtably been considered a nominee for best cinematography, best editing, best original score and of course, Best Director. <strong>Apocalypto</strong> showcases Gibson at the height of his game. Step aside Braveheart, this is Gibson's most accomplished effort to date and one of the best films of 2006. What are you waiting for? Go and see this film immediately!</div><div></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div></div><div><strong>9.0</strong></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-4524615845557803910?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-5389711038622306272007-07-18T17:33:00.000-04:002007-07-18T20:08:52.467-04:00<a href="http://www.alljim.com/jim/bkpics/bk-general.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.alljim.com/jim/bkpics/bk-general.jpg" border="0" /></a>Well, I finally got around to viewing my first Buster Keaton film and it was slightly disappointing. I'm probably going to be lynched for my position here so its best to offer justification for such a blasphemous statement or else face the consequences.<br /><div></div><br /><div>It's not that I flat out despised it with ever fiber of my being but it really tested my patience and wasn't that funny. Then again, that isn't necessarily a valid criticism since my pre-conceived notions was that it was going to be a slap-stick type comedy with a lot of running gags of hilarity. Consider my bewilderment when it turned out that wasn't entirely the case. Of course, Keaton is known for his amazing stunts and there was plenty to admire in his acrobatic flair except nothing he really did made me burst out laughing. A few chuckles here and there. Mainly just a profound admiration for Keaton and the risks he took in this film. </div><br /><div>I can only imagine how audiences reacted to Keaton's film in 1927 which apparently was one of most expensive films to make at the time. The technical innovations employed here must have been a real treat and watching it in the present day, I'll be hard pressed to find someone who didn't at least appreciate Keaton's skill at pulling off some of these scenes without the aid of CGI. Taking place during the American Civil War, the majority of the film focuses on a train chase sequence which has our Southern hero frantically trying to get away from union troops via railroad. I honestly could not anticpate what Keaton would do next and he has plently of clever surprises up his sleeves along the way. My only problem is that the gag felt dragged out even though it was amusing to watch it unfold. </div><br /><div>Perhaps this wasn't the greatest starting point in Keaton's filmography or maybe my expectations were too high since this film did appear recently at #18 on AFI's top 100 movies of 2007 list and the constant praise it receives by respected film buffs and critics like Roger Ebert. Factor in my lack of exposure to silent cinema and it's clear to see why I wasn;t completely won over by this supposed masterpiece.</div><br /><div>Keaton has plenty of charmisa and his fearlessness is truely worthy of recognition. I only wish there was some way to view this film with 1927 eyes. Never fear, this is definitely not the end for Mr. Keaton. Hopefully with time after viewing more of his work, I'll return to <strong>The General</strong> and discover a newfound admiration for it.</div><br /><div><strong>6.0</strong></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-538971103862230627?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-39898623640403014792007-07-10T21:49:00.000-04:002007-07-18T21:06:02.254-04:00<a href="http://www.shystee.com/shysteeblog/archives/aguirrecut.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.shystee.com/shysteeblog/archives/aguirrecut.jpg" border="0" /></a> Much praise has been heaped upon this seminal film by Werner Herzog and even though my expectations were kept in check, it was still a major disappointment. On a technical level, there is much to be admired in Herzog’s directing abilities especially in the opening sequence which is absolutely mesmerizing. The way he positions his camera to focus on an army of travelers moving down a massive mountain side in a light fog is truly a sight to be behold. The ominous score that methodically pulsates along with the humdrum narration creates a dream-like quality that is very engrossing. Positioned on an adjacent mountain, Herzog slowly zooms in on the brigade of individuals descending further and further down which seems to last for ages. Unfortunately, as wonderful as this beginning scene is, not much that follows was truly interesting to me.<br /><br />Klaus Kinski plays the ruthless captain Aguirre who will risk the lives of his own men in his selfish quest to seek the City of Gold: El Dorado. His performance is truly maddening and his bug-eyed stare is merciless. There are many close-up shots of his face where the tortured insanity is perfectly captured. He stumbles around in a drunken manner mostly yelling and even in his more muted scenes remains utterly terrifying. I can’t recall a performance that was as maddening as Kinski here. This man clearly has issues. Just observe the way he stares at his fellow soldiers with that insane glare in his eye or his creepy behavior towards his daughter. As the story progresses he becomes increasingly insane and for his performance alone, the film is worth a viewing.<br /><br />Herzog is more interested in the journey rather than the destination. Whether or not Aguirre and his followers are able to reach their goal is not important here because he is more intent on using the basic set-up as a means to exploring various themes such as greed, power, madness, colonization and most importantly man vs. nature. Herzog is successful in getting across his ideas but the extremely sluggish pace diminished my interest in anything he was trying to get across despite establishing a hypnotic mood. Unfortunately, the hypnosis was much too effective and I felt bored throughout most of the film. At least the spider monkeys were cool.<br /><br /><strong>5.0</strong><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-3989862364040301479?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-18895238391587535572007-07-03T20:08:00.000-04:002007-07-18T21:07:20.521-04:00<a href="http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2120134/2144533/2144534/060627_MOV_scannerDarklyEX.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2120134/2144533/2144534/060627_MOV_scannerDarklyEX.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><p></p><br /><p>Richard Linklater belongs to that small group of young American filmmakers who are building a reputation as an auteur with a unique vision which include the likes of P.T. Anderson, M. Night Shyamalan and David Gordon Green just to name a few. He has a several “Hollywood productions” under his belt and can’t be held fully responsible for the abysmal <strong>Bad News Bears</strong> since it was a job he more than likely took to pay the bills (or at least that’s the theory I am sticking to) but has also created two masterpieces with <strong>Before Sunrise/Before Sunset</strong> which in my opinion stand as two of the most beautiful romances in cinematic history.<br /><br />His latest project is a daring experiment; implementing a more finely tuned aesthetic of the rotoscoping technique which he first used in the philosophical/mind trip Waking Life (2001). Here he tackles the adaptation of a Philip K. Dick science fiction short story about a near future America being plagued by drug addiction or more specifically, Substance D, a lethal and highly addictive drug that is tearing the country apart. The film carries a significant social relevance pertaining to the major drug epidemic which is a major problem in present-day America.<br /><br />Believe it or not, Keanu Reeves actually delivers a solid performance as a narc who gets assigned to monitor the day-to-day lives of a group of friends who are under the suspicion of being involved in the usage/distribution of the dangerous drug. The trademark Linklater dialogue is present and this time around he has bigger name actors to work with including Woody Harrelson, Winona Ryder and the awesome Robert Downy Jr. who seems to be popping up in a lot of great films recently What follows, I dare not reveal except to note that the film cleverly touches upon the ideas of paranoia, identity, privacy, and conspiracies in the form of a hallucinatory puzzle. The ending is a total shocker and it is in these closing moments where the intricacies of the story are fully realized. There is a whole lot more going on beneath those strikingly lucid visuals.</p><p><strong>9.0</strong></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-1889523839158753557?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-86501540795181756172007-07-03T10:38:00.000-04:002007-07-31T15:44:49.845-04:0002/07: <strong>Cars (2006) - 8 </strong><br />03/07: Hot Fuzz (2007) - <strong>8.5</strong><br />03/07: American Psycho (2000) - <strong>6.5</strong><br />08/07: All the Real Girls (2003) - <strong>10</strong><br /><br />I'm pretty sure <strong>All the Real Girls</strong> is a masterpiece. David Gordon Green's southern romance is so beautifully poetic whilst taking on a dreamy atmosphere that is effective in conveying the feelings and emotions of being in love but unable to fully express it. There are so many heartfelt moments compassionately presented here that are profoundly moving and even though the story isn't particularly original, Green artistically creates a unique experience of the joys and pains of falling in love. Quietly understated and slow paced, this isn't a film for everyone but those willing to give it a chance might discover something truely sublime here. 10/10<br /><br />10/07: Aguirre, the Wrath of God (Herzog, 1972) - See review<br />10/07: Art School Confidential (2006) - <strong>4.0</strong><br />11/07: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (Yates, 2007) - 8<br />14/07: Lady in the Water (2006) - <strong>8.5</strong><br />14/07: Blood Diamond (Zwick, 2006) - <strong>7.0</strong><br />15/07: Wonder Boys (Hanson, 2000) - <strong>7.0</strong><br />15/07: Shopgirl (Tucker, 2005) - <strong>3.0</strong><br />15/07: Raising Arizona (Coen, 1987) - <strong>7.0</strong><br />17/07: The General (Keaton/Bruckman, 1927) - See Review<br />18/07: Apocalypto (Gibson, 2006) - <strong>8.5</strong><br />22/07: Last Life in the Universe (2003) - See Review<br />22/07: Shortbus (Mitchell, 2006) - See Review<br />25/07: <em>Fanny Och Alexander</em> (Bergman, 1982) - See Review<br />25/07: Perfume: Story of a Murderer (Twyker, 2006) - <strong>8.0</strong><br />26/07: Traffic (Soderbergh, 2000) - <strong>8.0</strong><br />26/07: Babel (Innarritu, 2006) - <strong>6.0</strong><br />27/07: Cries and Whispers (Bergman, 1972) - <strong>8.0</strong><br />27/07: Picnic at Hanging Rock (Weir, 1975) - <strong>3.0</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />I still can't believe this is the same guy that directed The Truman Show. A group of young girls at a strict boarding school in Australia go on a field trip to an anicent rock site where four of them wander up the rocky slopes vanishing without a trace. An intriguing premise with potential to develop into something worthwhile ends up being a total borefest. Nothing happens. Plot is thrown out the window in favor of mystery except Weir doesn't give us any reason to care.<br /><br />27/07: House of Games (Mamet, 1987) - <strong>6.0</strong><br />28/07: Pump up the Volume (Moyle, 1990) - <strong>7.0</strong><br />28/07: Turtles Can Flay (Ghobadi, 2004) - <strong>9.0</strong><br />29/07: Wolf Creek (McLean, 2005) - <strong>6.5</strong><br />30/07: Dogville (Trier, 2003) - <strong>9.0</strong><br />31/07: The Painted Veil (Curran, 2006) - <strong>7.0</strong><br />31/07: The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover (Greenaway, 1989): <strong>8.0</strong><br />31/07: À ma soeur! (Breillat, 2001): <strong>2.0</strong><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-8650154079518175617?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-11671858138257161942007-07-03T10:37:00.000-04:002007-07-18T21:06:20.488-04:00<a href="http://media.movieweb.com/galleries/3052/2129/lo/christine.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://media.movieweb.com/galleries/3052/2129/lo/christine.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>There’s something intimately special about this little gem which until quite recently flew completely under my radar. Miranda July’s debut Me, You and Everyone You Know is to me, what cinema is all about: A unique storytelling voice, complex/engaging characters and just bursting with creativity. She’s a modest filmmaker with a free spirit who conveys a deep sense of compassion for her characters despite their flaws. There isn’t so much a plot as there are vignettes of each of the characters lives interwoven together within a thematic framework. Rarely do you encounter characters with such veracity where it feels like you could just step outside your door and bump right into them.<br /><br />Odd as much as it is utterly compelling, July’s film feels almost on the breaking point of being too slight at times. Miraculously, she avoids this pratfall by finding the perfect balance between melancholy and humor to great effect. It allows the free flowing narrative to take on a tangible poignancy. Instead of focusing on big revelatory plot devices, she decides to keep her story relatively simple. It would be an understatement to label this film as an exercise in quirkiness (not too found of this word) because even though the characters are idiosyncratic, they remain genuinely human. July masterfully observes candid moments that seem almost irrelevant and makes them special.<br /><br />To make a comparison, I’d classify it as Magnolia’s (P.T. Anderson, 1999) little sister sprinkled with a little Todd Solondz for good measure. The key difference here is July’s sense of palatable optimism. That isn’t to say that Anderson and Solondz offer more bleak representations of human experiences because contentment can be found in their work as well but Miranda July comes across as being someone who understands the importance of human compassion on a level that so refreshingly devoid of any cynicism. The result is a rare experience that is profoundly moving and a film you just want to watch again as a means of inspiration. Easily the best film of 2005 for me.<br /><br /><strong>9.5</strong></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-1167185813825716194?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-77619123811117028292007-06-26T15:12:00.000-04:002007-07-18T21:07:39.980-04:00<a href="http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/winter2002/columns/images/Rodger-Dodger.2.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/winter2002/columns/images/Rodger-Dodger.2.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><em>"Natural selection, now that is a principle of nature, selection, something has to lose, something has to be defeated in order for something else to be selected."</em><br /><br />Perhaps if only I were as suave and witty as Roger Swanson (played by the impeccable Campbell Scott) when it comes to interacting with the ladies, my non-existent love-life could invariably take a turn for the better. He’s a smooth talker who is exceptionally gifted when it comes to understanding the female psyche which has obviously allowed for him much success in bedding women on a regular basis. His intellectual charm and good looks come off may come off as a bit smug but that doesn’t stop women from falling for him. Roger has even managed to start a sexual fling with his boss (Isabella Rossellini) except when she decides to call it off to avoid any future interference with their work; he doesn’t take the break-up all too well. Enter nephew Nick (Jesse Eisenberg), a 16 year old who shows up at his office and is interested in learning from his uncle the tricks of the trade when it comes to dating.<br /><br />Roger agrees to help Nick with his women problems and propels him into a crash collision course of dating. First time director Dylan Kidd who also wrote the script isn’t interested so much in whether his two protagonist’s get the girl in the end but is more intent on exploring the battle of the sexes and the difficulties of dating in a chaotic urban society. Kidd doesn’t paint Roger as a saint like-figure. He is a pompous jerk and his motives are a tad bit sketchy. Spending time with his nephew allows him to realize the error of his ways and that there’s more to relationships than just getting a good screw off.<br /><br />For a film that is very dialogue heavy, the actors involved need to compliment the sharp and clever script which they do so in spades. Campbell Scott personally gives one of my favorite performances of 2002 through his outstanding delivery of speech and his uncanny ability to dominate each and every scene. His character may be a selfish and deceiving individual but Scott is able to portray him in such sympathetic light (not an easy task). Sure, he may bed a different woman every other night but deep down, Roger is a miserable lonely person who is sick of the dating game. Scott does such an excellent job of subtly depicting his character’s self-loathing for his lifestyle and the contradictions that arise in his attempt to help Nick become even more poignant. Eisenberg and the rest of the supporting cast are solid but this is primarily Campbell Scott’s film and he makes sure that his presence is known.</div><div> </div><div></div><div><strong>9.0</strong></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-7761912381111702829?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-54682587188446959652007-06-26T12:26:00.001-04:002007-06-26T12:26:32.772-04:00The Girl Next Door (Greenfield, 2004)<br /><br />The promotional marketing was deceiving; the trailers suggested a silly teenager comedy except it turned out to be a rather dark comedy about the relationship between a high school senior and a young porn star who wants to escape show business. He’s a social outcast, an honor student who plays by the rules and when he develops a crush on the new girl next door (hence the title), his world turns topsy-turvy. The premise is ripe for all sorts of hilarity, but the filmmakers decide to put a slight twist on what could have been a conventional comedy about horny teenagers which almost pays off. The transition into a darker drama is slighty jarring making for plot holes and silly character motivations with no payoff. Cuthbert is the definition of sexy and her sympathetic portrayal of a porn star with a “heart of gold” is pretty much the film’s only saving grace. It’s disposable and probably best viewed on cable television when there’s nothing else on.<br /><br /><strong>4/10</strong><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-5468258718844695965?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-34440964196097895222007-06-18T17:55:00.000-04:002007-07-18T21:14:11.559-04:00<a href="http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/fox_searchlight/waking_life/_group_photos/marta_banda2.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/fox_searchlight/waking_life/_group_photos/marta_banda2.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Welcome to Philosophy 101 on acid. Alternating between headache-inducing nausea and poetic lyricism, Linklater’s <strong>Waking Life</strong> employs a unique visual style that takes on a lucid-dreamlike quality unlike anything I have ever seen before. According to the making-of feature on the DVD, the film was first shot using regular hand-held cameras which allowed for increased mobility and for a more documentary type feel. The footage was then edited before given to the animators who were then able to add another dimension through the technique of “rotoscoping” which basically involves tracing the image frame by frame. The animation looks almost hand-drawn but not in the traditional sense. It’s much more fluid whereas the images take on a certain painting-like quality mixed with a live-action comic book. Visually, the film is fascinating to look at with its attention to detail and hallucinatory imagery. The surrealistic animation effectively coincides with the protagonist’s state of mind who finds himself unable to distinguish between dreams and reality.<br /><br />Polarizing to say the least, <strong>Waking Life</strong> can be a frustrating experience because of its meandering narrative, trippy visuals and excessive philosophical ramblings. The film can be a bit exhausting on the brain with its conceited philosophical discussions primarily revolving around the big “E” word. Split into several vignettes where the unnamed protagonist sets out on his journey of self-discovery, he meets a handful of different people who each raise their own questions regarding the great debates of human existence. Some discussions are more interesting than others and although never boring, it can be little overwhelming to absorb everything that is being articulated. Nevertheless, there’s something intimately profound about this film that asks the viewer examine their own life in regards to the different issues raised. The cover-art is quite deceiving in looking like a psychedelic comedy of sorts. That couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s more of an art-house film with a high-brow attitude that allows Linklater to spew forth all of his philosophical ideals of the universe.<br /><br />Some may find it aggravating while others will find it to be quite rewarding. I find myself in the latter category. <strong>Waking Life</strong> emphasizes the significance of curiosity being an essential human quality to growing and it’s encouraging that Linklater provides a bombardment of fascinating questions and theories ladled with heavy connotations whilst bestowing no definitive answers. Everyone wants to find some sort of significant meaning in their life and what I found to be the most positive aspect of this film was its encouragement to step out of the box for a moment in order to rationally contemplate what it means to lead a fulfilling life.<br /><br /><strong>8.0</strong><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-3444096419609789522?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-72337399276042546792007-06-01T11:19:00.000-04:002007-08-10T22:43:52.124-04:0001/06: <strong>The Mummy</strong> (Sommers, 1999)<strong> -</strong> 8.5<br />01/06: <strong>The Mummy Returns</strong> (Sommers, 2001) - 7<br />02/06: <strong>Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle</strong> (Leiner, 2004) - 6<br /><br />It's a little ironic for this to be the first film to review in this thread. I can only imagine how much more enjoyable it would have been watching it high. A stoner comedy much like an updated version of Cheech and Chong, Harold and Kumar is delightfully stupid and never takes itself too seriously. I tend to usually avoid a lot of these silly modern day comedies on the basis that many of them follow a smiliar hokey premise and come of as being inane instead of funny. Or maybe I've become too jaded as a filmgoer to appreciate an inconsequenital comedy once in a while.<br /><br />Nevertheless, the film did manage to make me laugh on more than one occassion (especially the Anthony Anderson cameo) but I also found myself rolling my eyes more than I would have liked. The Hang glider sequence anyone? There's also a scene where our two protagonists encounter a Cheetah which can only be described as bizarre. The running gag does become slightly redundant as the two buddies stumble from one misadventure to the next and by the end it runs out of steam. A decent comedy, but I'd never watch it again unless I decided to smoke up as a pre-requisite.<br /><br />03/06: <strong>The Fountain</strong> (Aronofsky, 2006) - 9.5<br /><br />Not many films have been as emotionally gut-wrenching or visually stunning as Darren Aronofsky's <strong>The Fountain. </strong><br /><br />04/06: <strong>Ocean's Eleven</strong> (Soderbergh, 2001)<br />04/06: Batman Begins (Nolan, 2005) - 9.5<br />05/06: Hard Candy (Slade, 2005) - 9<br />06/06: Half Nelson (Fleck, 2006)<br /><br />Despite the great performance by Ryan Gosling who received a lot of press last year for his realistic portrayal of a drug addict middle school history teacher, the film in itself felt slightly hollow and innocuous. It made the mistake of confusing over-sentimentality with subltely which resulted in more indifference rather than poignancy. Nevertheless, it is commendable for portraying such a life-like respresentation of drug addiction without resorting to the typical spiral downfall or hokey sunshine ending of becoming clean through positive influenes. Far from an inspirational story, the film takes on a more slice-of-life approach towards the personal struggle of having a drug problem in the rawest form. Gosling's performance actually overshadows the weak script which tends to veer into overindulgent territory. <strong>Half Nelson </strong>is a mixed bag that relies considerably too much on its performances in order to keep the story afloat, leaving much to be desired.<br /><br /><strong>6/10</strong><br /><br /><br /><p><strong></strong></p><p>11/06: <strong>Mean Girls</strong> (2004)</p><p>So, um, <em>Mean Girls</em> was actually really good. One of the better representations of high school life that I have seen. One of my lecture halls was used in the film which was cool. Oh, Lohan and McAdams are also really hot. 8/10</p><p>12/06: <strong>The Girl Next Door</strong> (Greenfield, 2004) - 4</p><p>13/06: <strong>Wedding Crashers</strong> (Dobkin, 2005)</p><p>Put me in the camp that found the first half of this film to be a riot of laughs whilst finding the second half to be rather disappointing. Wilson and Vaughn play two ladies men who specialize in crashing weddings in order to get laid. They both have rare comedic duo chemistry (reminding me of a younger and hipper Jack Lemmon and Walter Matheau) playing off each other’s brand of humor which is very effective. Their contrasting personalities with Wilson being the softer type and Vaughn the more rowdy, gives their relationship an even more added hilarity. The dialogue seems takes on an improvisational effect with Vaughn and Wilson acting in an adlib fashion which is very amusing. Unfortunately, what initially started out as one the best comedies in recent memory turns sour once the second half of the film rolls around. The spark and crackle of Wilson and Vaughn’s relationship loses much of its potency as it is replaced by useless plot devices as a cheap shot to draw laughs which come off as more annoying than funny. If the filmmakers had kept to the spirit found in the beginning, Wedding Crashers may have turned out to be a lot more worthwhile. <strong>6/10</strong></p><p>18/06: <strong>Waking Life</strong> (Linklater, 2001) - 8</p><p>19/06: <strong>Science of Sleep</strong> (Gondry, 2006) - 4</p><p>20/06: <strong>Roger Dodger</strong> (Kidd, 2002) - 8</p><p>20/06: <strong>Me You and Everyone You Know</strong> (July, 2005) - 9.5</p><p>26/06: <strong>The Ice Storm</strong> (Lee, 1997) - 5</p><p>27/06: <strong>Driving Lessons</strong> (2006) - 6</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-7233739927604254679?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410765057545154373.post-70498394496835926462007-05-22T20:48:00.000-04:002007-08-09T10:41:50.341-04:0005/05 Borat (2006, Larry Charles): 8.0<br />05/15: Pans Labyrinth (2006, Del Toro): 8.0<br />05/23: Shaun of the Dead (2004, Pegg): 7.0<br /><br /><br />05/26: <strong>Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang (2005, Black): 9.0</strong><br /><br />Not abiding to any of the cliche trappings of the crime genre, Shane Black's debut is so wicked clever and exciting where the only fault I can see in it is that it might just be too clever for its own good. The dialogue is sharp, witty and very snappy, allowing the black comedy to unfold in perfect sucessession, never missing a beat. The humor is spot-on there are many scenes that blend comedy and violence to a hilarious effect. Right from the get-go, the pace reamins at a constant hustle, leaving nary a time to catch a breath. Top notch performances from Downy and Kilmer who have great on-screen chemistry, further solidify Kiss Kiss Bang Bang as one of the more memorable films of 2005.<br /><br /><strong>05/27: Pirates of the Caribean 3 - At World's End (2007, Verbinski): 5.0</strong><br /><br />An unecessary sequel that is bloated and totally void of any kind of inspiration. The action scenes were boring and Chow Yun Fat is completely wasted. It would have been nice to have his character serve some sort of purpose other than to try and nail Keira Knightly. A non-sensical plot and underdeveloped storylines; I found myself losing focus quite easily. Depp, Hans Zimmer's fabulous score and the special effects are enough to give this film a passing grade. Let's hope there isn't another sequel.<br /><br /><strong>05/30: Stranger Than Fiction (Foster, 2006): 8.5</strong><br /><strong></strong><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6410765057545154373-7049839449683592646?l=lemonzreviews.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jasonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13673456123891551169noreply@blogger.com1