January Viewing Log

01/08: Carnal Knowledge (Nichols, 1971): [***]
01/08: The Awful Truth (McCarey, 1934): [***1/2]
02/08: No Country for Old Men (Coen, 2008): [***1/2]
02/08: Killer of Sheep (Burnett, 1977): [****]
02/08: Sherlock Jr. (Keaton, 1924): [****]
03/08: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (Nichols, 1966): [****]
03/08: Memories of Murder (Bong, 2003): [***]
03/08: To Be Or Not to Be (Lubitsch, 1942): [****]
06/08: Charlie Wilson's War (Nichols, 2007): [***]
07/08: Rosetta (Dardennes, 1999): [*]
08/08: Ordet (Dreyer, 1955): [****]
08/08: The Vanishing (1988): [***]
09/08: Henry Fool (Hartley, 1997): [**]
10/08: Best of Youth (Giordani, 2003): [***1/2]
10/08: Juno (Reitman, 2007): [****]
10/08: The Shape of Things (LaBute, 20003): [***1/2]
14/08: Through a Glass Darkly (Bergman, 1961): [**]
14/08: Elevator to the Gallows (Malle, 1958): [***1/2]
15/08: Persepolis (Paronnaud/Satrapi, 2007): [***]
15/08: Rififi (Dassin, 1955): [****]
15/08: La Haine (Kassovitz, 1995): [****]
17/08: Juno (Reitman, 2007): [****] 2nd
17/08: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (Black, 2005): [****]
19/08: Juno (Reitman, 2007): [****] 3rd
20/08: Beowulf (Zemeckis, 2007): [**]
22/08: There Will Be Blood (Anderson, 2007): [***1/2]
23/08: Robocop (Verhoeven, 1985): [***1/2]
23/08: I'm Not There (Haynes, 2007): [***]
23/08: Raise the Red Lantern (Yimou, 1991): [****]
25/08: Lady Snowblood (Fujita, 1973): [***1/2]
25/08: Sweeny Todd (Burton, 2007): [***]
28/08: The Taking of Pelham 123 (Sargent, 1974): [***]
28/08: Ikiru (Kurosawa, 1952): [****]
28/08: The Blade (Hark, 1995): [****]
29/08: The Big Red One (Fuller, 1982): [***/12]
29/08: Playtime (Tati, 1967): ?????
30/08: The Conformist (Bertolucci, 1970): [***1/2]
30/08: Heroes of the East (Liang, 1979): [***1/2]
31/08: The Conversation (Coppolla, 1974): [****]
31/08: Death Trance (Shimomura, 2005): [***1/2]
31/08: Django (Corbucci, 1966): [***]

Talk to Me (Lemmons, 2007)

"Wake up, goddammit! "

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!

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 Hotel Rwanda as 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.

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.

Biopics seem to be a dime a dozen these days. While Talk to Me 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.

[***1/2]

Atonement (Wright, 2007)

Robbie Turner (McAvoy) and Cecilia Tallis (Knightly) share a passionate embrace by the seaside.

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.

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. Atonement 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.

[***]

December Viewing Log

05/12: Sansho the Bailiff (Mizoguchi, 1954): [****]
05/12: Broadway Danny Rose (Allen, 1984): [****]
05/12: Mission: Impossible III (Abrams, 2006): [**]
05/12: Say Anything (Crowe, 1989): [***1/2]
06/12: Scoop (Allen, 2006): [***]
06/12: The Ice Harvest (Ramis, 2005): [***1/2]
09/12: Melinda and Melinda (Allen, 2005): [***1/2]
13/12: Better Off Dead (Holland, 1985): [**]
15/12: Talk to Me (Lemmons, 2007): [***1/2]
18/12: Atonement (Wright, 2007): [***]
20/12: Rosemary's Baby (Polanski, 1968): [***1/2]
20/12: Fresh (Yakin, 1994): [****]
20/12: Radio Days (Allen, 1985): [***]
20/12: Ginger Snaps (Fawcett, 2000): [***1/2]
24/12: Three Colours: White (Kieslowski, 1994): [***1/2]
25/12: Les Diaboliques (Clouzout, 1955): [***1/2]
25/12: It's a Wonderful Life (Capra, 1946): [****]
26/12: The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser (Herzog, 1974): [***]
26/12: A Zed and Two Noughts (Greenaway, 1985): ????????
26/12: Brief Encounter (Lean, 1945): [***]
26/12: I am Legend (Lawrence, 2007): [**]
29/12: Block Party (Gondry, 2005): [***1/2]
30/12: Before the Devil Knows Your Dead (Lumet, 2007): [***]

Old Review: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Newell, 2005)

Written November 20, 2005

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.

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).

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.

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.

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...

[***1/2]

I am sorry for all the distress I have caused you.

The Red Shoes (1948)

This is the first time I've ever participated in a blog-a-thon and hopefully my contribution meets the preliminary expectations. There one taking place at Beyond the Valley of the Cinephiles 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.

The Red Shoes was my first introduction to Michael Powell & 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 life imitating art debate and the prestigous mise-en-scene where both run parallel to transform this film into a breathtaking piece of cinema.

To be continued...

A Basket of Sour Lemonz

For 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 100 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.

1. Morvern Callar
2. Red Road
3. Shopgirl
4. After Life
5. Tout Va Bien
6. Passion of the Christ
7. La Notti Bianche
8. Picnic at Hanging Rock
9. I Heart Huckabees
10. Wonderland
11. Fat Girl
12. Close Encounters of the Third Kind
13. Grand Illusion
14. Happiness
15. Sympathy for Lady Vengeance
16. Death-Proof
17. Battlefield Earth
18. Big Fish
19. Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World
20. Simon Birch
21. Pscyho (1998)
22. Hollow Man
23. Natural Born Killers
24. Stranger Than Paradise
25. Planet of the Apes
26. Shane
27. Finding Neverland
28. Junior
29. Pay it Forward
30. Mars Attacks!
31. How the Grinch Stole Christmas

50 Novels to Read This Year: March 24, 2008 - March 24, 2009

A 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.

Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel garcia Marquez
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
Lolita by Vladamir Nabokov
Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke
The Road by Cormac McCarthy
100 Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Watership Down by Richard Adams
The Bottoms by Landsdale
Disgrace by J.M. Coetzee
The Brothers Karamazov
Alias Grace by Margaret Atwood
The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath
The Corrections by Jonathan Frazen
A Streetcar Named Desire by Williams
The Infernal Desire Machines of Doctor Hoffman by Angela Carter
The Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler
Life of Pi
The Devil in the White City by Erik Larson
Kavalier and Clay
The Zero by Jess Walter
East of Eden by John Steinback
Crime and Punishment
The Wind Up Bird Chronicle
Me Talk Pretty One Day
The Plague by Camus
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
La Debacle by Emile Zola
The Unbearable Lightness of Being
Bloodsucking Fiends
More than Human by Theodore Sturgeon
To Marry Medus by Theodore Sturgeon