highkite Reviews

Bobby (I) (2006)

One of the best of the year

[10/10 · 10 October 2006]

If you're sitting in the back row of a theater, hiding your tears as the credits roll for a movie, you know it delivered the emotional effect it was aiming for. I was lucky enough to catch "Bobby" at the Toronto Film Festival -- its North American premier -- and what I got was an incredibly beautiful story, cinematically gripping to say the least.

Like in all great ensemble movies, "Bobby" offers a stellar cast, none of whom disappoint. From the neurotic and self-conscious character of Samantha (played by Helen Hunt) to the outspoken, confident Edward Robinson (Laurence Fishburne), there is a vast mixture of personalities that work to provide a complex interwoven plot line. But the most notable performance (and the most surprising) is that of Virginia Fallon. Brillianty portrayed by Demi Moore, Virginia is a foul-mouthed, insecure alcoholic who sways around on screen in delicate form, both heartbreaking and beautiful to watch.

Director-writer Emilio Estevez put his heart into this project. The direction is without a doubt highly impressive. The subtle colorful hues reflect the emotional grip of each scene, and extenuate a modern feel to the film. He puts us head-first in the crowd that witnessed the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, on what would seem to be one of the most heartbreaking moments in American history.

But what really stands out in this movie is not the screenplay, nor directing, nor acting. The emotional intensity is brilliantly brought out through the use of sound. An actual audio footage of RFK is heard in the background as the tense score sways by over the muted dialogue. And what works for this type of film-making is the amount of anticipation it builds up, and even after pivotal scenes, the impact it leaves on the audience.

There is a key scene in the movie in which all the characters prepare to greet RFK when the energy of the entire screen seemingly drips with positivity towards the American society. It's as though we forget the fatal tragedy and give into the thought of this story having a happy ending. We are reminded of classic ensemble films such as "Short Cuts", "Magnolia" and "Crash" and immediately juxtapose that feeling.

Though I do fear that politically this movie may not hit home for a lot of the critics once it hits a wide release, it is definitely going to leave a lasting impression on the majority who sees it. It's a movie that presents a magnificent cast, superb directing, and flawless scriptwriting. An undoubtedly obvious ingredient for the Awards season.

The Descent (2005)

One of the best horror flicks in the last few years.

[10/10 · 24 August 2006]

Like "Open Water" and "Blair Witch Project", this is a movie that holds more in its setting than it does in the fear factor. "The Descent" isn't your typical screaming, jump-fest, it's a film that creates the situation more scary than the atmosphere. However, what makes a movie like this work is the constant feeling that something will in fact trigger that atmospheric feeling that every horror tries to manipulate onto the audience. And even though there are certain scenes that have you jump out of your seat, this is not an exercise in just how many surprises you can take. It's an exercise in how long you can have your hands squeezing the seat before it starts to hurt.

It is a movie that centers around Sarah (Shauna Macdonald) and her female friends who, every year, take a trip somewhere adventurous and explore. After Sarah's husband and child are tragically killed in a car accident, she suffers emotional pain but decides to bond again with her friends and do something fun to get her mind off of everything. This time, they decide to explore a deep cave. Of course, being a horror, the cave isn't really ordinary. In this cave, there are dead ends, rocks falling, bridges collapsing, deep holes, and-- oh yeah, mutated creatures. These deadly creatures hunger and without warning, eat the living flesh right off your body. Sarah and her friends must avoid all obstacles and reach the exit of the dark cave, before it's too late.

Neil Marshall, previously famous for "Dog Soldiers", creates a movie so intense, so teeth clenching, you have no choice but to feel tense. His use of space and camera angles creates an almost surreal claustrophobic feel. There you put yourself in the situation, and as you imagine yourself walking through a dark cave full of monsters, you get more terrified. Never before has a movie put me in such terror without even realizing it.

In the day and age where horrors are all the same, and where they're only made for money, a horror fanatic needs some sort of reminder that there are some movies that still excite. Being a huge fan of the genre myself, it was a pleasant treat, and definitely a scary one. Call it being biased, call it too early, but "The Descent" makes its way up into one of my favorite movies of the year.

Dancer in the Dark (2000)

A big kudos to Bjork and von Trier...

[10/10 · 24 August 2006]

It's your typical setting: a woman lives in a small town where everyone knows each other, everyone does hard labor, and everyone is money hungry. Realizing that this is a big melodrama doesn't take much thought, and director von Trier isn't shy to blatantly face this fact. "Dancer in the Dark" is a sort of psychology test. It asks just how long one can live in shame, and how far people will go to defend their honor.

Lars von Trier doesn't hide the fact that he hates America. Unafraid to show the dark side of it, he often shows his characters isolated and withdrawn from the world, stopping at nothing to get what they want. But he doesn't do it so that it seems as though this is the only way the people are. He carefully places psychological elements in order to manipulate the characters to seem more bitter. In this case, he focuses on greed.

"Dancer in the Dark" is about Selma Jezkova (Bjork), a Czechoslovakian woman who moves to America in 1964 to pursue her dreams of being a musical actress. However, while in America she realizes her condition: she is going blind and there's nothing she can do about it. She has a son who is at huge risk of also getting the disease and to protect him, Selma slowly saves money for an operation. She does this all while going blind.

I was skeptical about Bjork playing the part for a number of reasons. She doesn't look eastern European, she doesn't sound eastern European, and she certainly has never been in a large motion picture before. But then something happened, and from minute one of Bjork's presence I knew there was something about the performance that gets right down to your bones. Here is a movie that throws you in powerful emotion, and Bjork was able to pull it off. And then some.

The story itself isn't very complex but it does represent how constricted a community can be, and just how hunger for power can only go so far. Like his later work, "Dogville" and "Manderlay", von Trier simply relies on the performances to drive the movie more than anything else. He and Bjork, though often hated each other on sets, pulled off the best performance of the year, and the most emotionally charged film since "Titanic". This is a movie that in my opinion was wrongfully snubbed at the Oscars for at least a Lead Actress nomination. But I digress, and the Cannes Film Festival win surely proves that Bjork can in fact, act.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

A class example of how to make a fantasy epic

[10/10 · 8 August 2006]

"Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" is a visually stunning reach into the imagination. It is a deep and complex journey into the unknown, the dangerous and the inescapable. The previous two installments, "The Fellowship of the Rings", and "The Two Towers" present elements in which this film connects them together to quietly and subtly present nostalgia as the journey finally ends. The "Lord of the Rings" trilogy is by far the most cinematically beautiful trilogy ever created, so it's no surprise that this final chapter in the saga goes out with a bang. This is a tale about courage, survival, fate, and friendship. More pleasant to watch than the previous film, it is a bold ending to a bold adventure.

In this final installment, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) must realize his destiny as the king of men and gather his army for the final fight of Middle Earth. Meanwhile, Frodo (Elijah Wood), Sam (Sean Astin) and Gollum (Voiced by Andy Serkis), formerly known as Smeagol, lurk through the dark cities and mountains in order to reach Mount Doom and destroy the ring once and for all. Complications arise as Frodo suspects Sam of betrayal and theft, while Gollum plans to murder Frodo and take the ring back. Gandalf (Ian McKellen) rides with Pippin (Billy Boyd) to Minas Tirith to warn the humans of the attack, while Arwen (Liv Tyler) realizes she is to become a mortal and have a child with Aragorn. The story comes to its final climax as Frodo reaches the core of Mount Doom and Aragorn, together with his army leads the Mount Doom army away to set a clear path for Frodo.

From minute one, you get sucked into the insanely arousing visuals. The stellar special effects and the epic battles that include incredibly intricate fighting scenes, along with stellar sound, to make the epic battle realistic and fast. The most complex and stunning CGI creation is the creature Gollum (who we see transform from human to monster in the first 10 minutes of the movie). His fish-eyes move around and his body language sways and we forget that he isn't real. And as he attempts to steal the ring and frame Sam, that feeling sets in as though we've been watching a villain kill the main protagonist. In some ways, he has more character traits than a lot of the human actors in the movie. For example, when he talks to himself while looking at his own reflection in the water, he exhibits countless emotions and we know the torment he is experiencing.

Peter Jackson combines CGI and real settings but we never know it. We cannot tell whether a pathway is computer generated or built, whether a door that leads to a lava pit is trick photography or just a different setting. He is able to direct in such a way that the city of Minas Tirith looks both impossible to build, but very convincing. Even Mount Doom seems realistic and we question whether it is a real volcano or just another one of Jackson's genius visions. Not to mention the final battle of Middle Earth, we're constantly thrown into moving mammoths, flying humans, arrows appearing out of nowhere, rocks falling from the sky, people running, swords swinging. And it's all done in one single scene. Our eyes widen with excitement and disbelief, and we can't look away.

Not far away from the complete CGI fighting, Frodo and Sam walk up a set of stairs as a shortcut that Gollum showed them to get to Mount Doom quicker. Sam's becoming restless but still gives all of the food to Frodo. Gollum is becoming more impatient, and Frodo is walking into the dark side. We question whether or not Frodo will make it to Mount Doom, and whether Sam will be able to help him. But even if they do make it, will they make it back? We want hope, and no character better than Gandalf offers that to us. He says "I see Frodo. He is alive" as he smiles and cheerfully pats Aragorn on the back.

There are many scenes in which the audience feels emotion for the character, the situation and the outcome. For example, Denethor (John Noble) finds that his son had been killed and summons his younger son into battle. Upon his son's return he loses his mind and starts to burn himself and his son alive in an attempt to rid himself of guilt. In another very powerful scene, Pippin stands in Denethor's presence as he starts singing a song. This song parallels beautifully the beginning of the big fight, as the Orcs fly and run towards the castle.

The directing is undoubtedly superb, and every aspect of the visuals is brilliant. There isn't even a need to comment on the details since from one look at the movie it is a given. "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" is an incredible gem and a wonderfully directed film. This final film is a perfect example of how a fantasy epic can work in every way possible.

Three Colors: Red (1994)

The final chapter in a flawless saga

[10/10 · 8 August 2006]

Trilogies are very interesting. Some go out with a bang (Lord of the Rings), some get progressively weaker (The Matrix), some get lost in obscurity (Blade, Back to the Future), but some maintain the genius, that seemingly ever-growing bright light that floats beyond the surface of its flawless exterior. Case and point: "Three Colors Trilogy". This chapter in the trilogy, being the last one, is the most philosophical and thought-provoking. In "Blue" we had a more visually stunning, more character-driven plot, in "White" it was more of a light hearted, narrative-driven story where we listen more to what the characters say than anything. "Red", however is focused on the "what ifs" and "how comes". It questions our own fate and focuses mainly on the past and the future than the present.

This chapter is about a young model who runs over a dog and brings him back to his owner. She soon finds out that the owner of the dog is actually a cynical retired judge who spies on his neighbors' phone calls through advanced spying equipment. All three films in the trilogies have very basic plot lines, but bring a lot more to the story. Consider in "Blue", the story of a woman dealing with the loss of her loved ones. We are constantly shown ideas about the contemporary French society and how that reflects the character's behavior. "Red" is not only about a young woman who finds shelter in an older man's life, but it is also about chance, hope, and fate.

Irene Jacob stars as Valentine Dussaut, who at first finds the old man (Jean-Louis Trintignant), whom we never find the name of, extremely self-centered and disgusting. Though through self reflective analysis, and her voyeuristic intentions, she learns that the judge would be the perfect man for her, if only he was 40 years younger. Irene lives across from another, younger judge, who highly resembles the old man. This is the "what if" that keeps circling in the movie. What if Irene were born 40 years ago? The old man would have been her perfect match. But what if the younger judge is actually her perfect match, since he so closely resembles the older one. Valentine doesn't know this, only we do, and Krzysztof Kieslowski subtly suggests this in almost every frame which Irene is in. We are constantly smacked in the face with his presence, as almost a suggestion of Irene's fate.

I mention that the old man does not have a name for a reason. That reason is because it is very symbolic to the overall theme in the story. We are to compare the old judge to Auguste (Jean-Pierre Lorit), the younger judge, in more than one way. We learn that the old man once had someone he loved but she got away. In another scene, we see Auguste heartbroken as the love of his life gets away with another man. There are constant reminders of whether or not Valentine will ever meet this man. Even though they pass each other without noticing every single day. There is also the motif of the telephone, to Valentine it is a way of keeping sane and updating her life, to Auguste it is what leads to his heartbreak, and to the old man, it is the only thing he has left. These three elements serve to shadow the characters own psychology. It is a sort of statement about what they are and who they are.

All three "Colors" films stand for a certain principle, most common in France. "Blue" stands for Liberty (the personal being), "White" stands for Equality (being accepted by more than one), and "Red" is Fraternity (to socialize, to learn). And although this final chapter is an obvious focus on the Fraternity principle, Kieslowski makes sure he brings in the other two as well, in order to connect all three stories. For example, we see the old man trying to reach out to Valentine and enlighten her with his spy equipment, which is a reflection of the Equality principle. We also see near the end that Valentine is doing some soul searching and that she's more concerned about herself than others (not picking up the phone when Michel calls), a clear example of Liberty. And with all three principles established, Kieslowski nicely connects all of the characters as well, in the final and most heartfelt scene.

"Red" is about where you could have been if you were older or younger. It is about whether or not there is someone completely perfect for everyone, and whether or not one person can change your life. The final chapter in the most awe-inspiring trilogy ever made, this film breaks barriers in both directing and storytelling. It is not only about our modern life, but about where life could and should be in our modern time. And although the movie is more subtle than both "Blue" and "White", it boldly exclaims a statement of love and compassion.

It's hard to imagine that "Red" was Kieslowski's last film, and that he died at such a young age. Nevertheless, the trilogy will always be his masterpiece and we will always remember him for his work that ranks right up with Bergman, Fellini, and Wenders as a truly remarkable director who's never been awarded with an Oscar. Kieslowski, you have been missed!

Three Colors: White (1994)

Least favorite of the three, but doesn't stop it from being genius!

[10/10 · 4 August 2006]

This is the second installment in probably the best trilogy ever created. Though this one is not as strong as its predecessor, it does offer a unique and stylistic way of looking at life. It's a dark comedy about acceptance, love and betrayal. Can one man really start over in a new place? Can he heal from the pain that his wife caused him? Like in "Blue", it questions such things but does not mention it as much as it visually suggests it. And while it's not as powerful or complex as "Blue", it does play as a very unique and flowing transition between the two more dominant and relevant films.

"White" is a story about a man named Karol Karol (Zbigniew Zamachowski), a professional Polish hair-cutter who marries a young and beautiful French woman. He moves to France to live with her, and not long after, she divorces him because he's unable to have sex. He then again leaves France in an attempt to start a new life and win Dominique's (Julie Delpy) heart back. While on his journey though, he gets incredibly lucky and becomes wealthy, then pretends he's dead and waits for Dominique to come in order for him to see if she still loves him.

This is of course a perfect plot for comedy and it makes a lot of room for silly, slapstick jokes. Kieslowski wants to emphasize on the philosophical aspect of the movie just as much as the comedy. He chooses element that represent freedom and life (the statue of the woman that reminds Karol of Dominique), and the post-communistic lifestyle of a born communist. There is both a lighthearted and a more dark, sinister quality about "White". It's a typical 'you love me so you can't forget me' film, but does not play out in your conventional clichéd way. And while this lighthearted moment is shown, a dark overtone is prevalent. For example, when Karol meets Mikolaj and tells him of his beautiful wife, he goes and voyeuristically points her out, only to find her in bed with another man. He calls her and tells her he loves her, but she puts the phone up to her mouth and moans as loud as she can.

I mention voyeurism because that is a very reoccurring theme in the movie. Even Julie from "Blue" acts like almost a spy as she walks into the courtroom while Karol and Dominique are privately settling their divorce. Kieslowski creates a very voyeuristic feel in the movie so that we as the audience feel like we are overlooking the lives of others. Unlike Hitchcock though, Kieslowski does this but does not make us feel guilty about it, since of course, we don't witness a murder!

In this second installment, "White" is a quiet reminder that you can have a great film without going too deep into the themes and symbolisms. I have to agree with most of the people that "White" is the weakest of the genre, but it is a tremendously genius transition movie, a sort of light presence in the other two more darker films.

Delivery (2005)

It delivers...but without a bang

[6/10 · 4 August 2006]

"Delivery" reminds me of a short story I read in high school. It was about a village who found a hole in the ground that had almost no end. To restore their environment, they threw all of their waste into the hole, only to realize that everything they throw in there comes right back down from the sky. In this case, however, an old man lives in an isolated area where there is nothing but his house overlooking an industrial little city. He gets a delivery from the city and in it he finds a strange box. He opens this box and discovers that it is actually a gateway to the sky above the city. So after thinking hard, he puts his hand in the box and restores the environment.

There is no telling how far filmmakers will go when they find a good idea. In this case though, the idea was good but already taken, the animation is great but minimal, and the only thing that really got my attention is the score. This is a film that sends a blatant message about the environment but offers no emphasis on the character in the story. If they were to make this character look interesting, why not then make him a little deeper? He speaks nothing, he dreams nothing, he thinks nothing. We only know that he likes to water his plants.

At the beginning of the movie, it offers no real insight as to where the delivery came from. Who sent it and why, or why it's been sent to that specific man. Surely someone from the city wouldn't want to send someone a package where they literally become God to their city. Unless of course that person happens to be some menacing maniac. This of course isn't established and as a result we as the audience choose to ignore it. Another thing I found questionable is the use of space in this movie. We feel very trapped and blocked off from the outside world, yet the man lives in a house that has nothing around it, no houses, no people, no roads.

"Delivery" is a sort of allegory about our current environment and the philosophy of what we would do if we were God. Though to me it lacks much of the drive that most animated shorts can create, it does play nicely as a very artistic expression. Like aforementioned, the animation is great and the score is brilliant. But what it does not show, it does not attempt to explain. And that's a bit weak.

More (1998)

A bizarre yet unique animated short

[8/10 · 3 August 2006]

"More" plays out more like a music video than like your typical animated feature. Some things that come to mind are Tool videos and a few Marilyn Manson videos. Inevitably, it's the 90s cinematic style that inspired this type of film-making.

It is a story of a person. This is a person with no sex but we assume it's male because a clear obsession with machinery is shown. This person has no distinction between anybody else in the world. He wakes up in his crummy apartment, goes to his job where he fixes and puts together gadgets for an immensely popular brand of toy. This person however is hungry for something and we can't figure out what. His stomach opens up and shines a bright light, and determined as he is, he invents a new toy that makes you see nothing but happiness. Ultimately, the light in his stomach goes out and he's no longer happy.

The opening scene in the movie is very unique. It shows us a couple of (we assume) children playing in what seems to be a park. This represents happiness, and the scene jumps to a more saddened setting where the main character is living. The juxtaposition shows us just how pitiful this guy's life is. And after becoming happy with his new invention which leads to his emptiness, we realize that the title of the movie is exactly what he wants: more.

This is a very quirky movie. The haunting score is almost taken out from "Koyaanisqatsi", but yet feels very Tool-esquire. The music plays endlessly in the background as the visually stunning animation is shown. This is a very useful technique in keeping not only the viewers attention, but also keeping the audience in a more suspenseful mood.

"More" is not a typical animated short. It's very avant-garde and it mostly only tries to emphasize the music rather than the visuals. Had it been a more successful company, this film would have won the Oscar. The nomination was however good enough.

Geri's Game (1997)

Pretty funny...

[6/10 · 3 August 2006]

There's not much to say about this animated short since it runs at about 3 minutes. It won the Academy Award for Best Animated Short (and although it's very memorable, I would agree that there were better ones that year). The animation is superb and the attention to detail is obviously prevalent.

This is a story about an old man who sits down at a table to play chess. He takes out his pieces, sets both sides up and begins to play... by himself! He switches back and forth slowly and moves each piece. After a while though, the man stops moving and he's playing with an imaginary friend who looks exactly like him.

There isn't much to this story, and it was probably written in about 5 minutes, but the fact of the matter is that for its time, the animation is perfect. The movement of the character is utterly realistic and the setting around him is amazing. The old man's face is also very real, and as he sways from hysterically laughing to frowning, we not only find it hilarious but also very creative.

"Geri's Game" is one of those animated shorts you just love to see before a movie. As I remember watching movies like "George of the Jungle" and "Men in Black", I remember this little film was always on before, and I always loved it. This is an animated short that children would love to watch over and over and over.

For the Birds (2000)

Ah this is just genius!!

[9/10 · 3 August 2006]

I love it when little cartoons like these win an Oscar. There are so many variety of little animated shorts, some that are really innovative and some that are very deep, but some just deserve the win for being so fun. For three whole minutes, this little film has you in hysterics. From the amazing sound effects that the birds make, to the incredibly genius ending, it's fun to keep watching this just for kicks.

It's about a couple of little snobby birds who fly onto a telephone wire and start hilariously chirping at each other. They suddenly hear a loud scream and they look over to see a funny looking big bird who wants to join in. The bird comes over and stands with them, pulling the wire down. The bird flips and holds on with one leg and the snobby birds start playing a game of "this little piggy..." They look down and as they're taking off the last finger, they notice that the telephone wire is at ground level and that the big bird will surely just fall an inch and they will get shot up. In a hilarious ending, the bird falls and the snobby birds fly up, losing all of their feathers.

This is an animated short that everyone can enjoy. It's not exactly targeted to children, nor is it targeted towards animated short buffs. It's something fun to watch before starting a good movie, or something hilarious to see when you're down. It always puts a smile on your face.

"For the Birds" is definitely an animated short that focuses more on the humor aspect, rather than the animation and story. The real fun comes when watching it with different people, knowing you'll all hysterically laugh once that bird falls and the snobby birds fly up. Definitely worth at least one viewing for pure entertainment! 9/10

Ryan (2004)

Best animated short

[10/10 · 3 August 2006]

This is not your typical animated short. It's not something you'd normally see before a full length feature at the cinema. It's more complex, and deep as it is fun and entertaining. There are, however elements of that too.

"Ryan" is a story about Ryan Larkin, an innovative, talented and gifted Canadian artist from the late 60s and early 70s. Director Chris Landreth plays himself, only a much more animated version. His body is breaking apart, his memories are haunting him and he's much more interested in the late artist instead of his own life. He introduces us to Ryan, voiced by Ryan Larkin himself, and tells us that he's on the verge of breaking down (literally). The story then starts playing out very visually as Ryan starts explaining the troubles of being an artist and how many are not respected and poor.

The visual style of this is enchanting. It goes through 3D animation, to pencil drawing, to painting, to sketches. Really unique in the sense that it stimulates your eye and allows you to see much more in the screen than most animated features do in a full scene. There are relative clues as to the depth of the main character, and how he's nostalgic of the past, and stricken by the disease of poverty ('Spare change? Thank you, sir, you're very kind.').

Chris starts out by telling us that he's about to explain some things to us. We expect him to tell us a story of Ryan, which has a regular narrative structure in which there's a beginning, a climax and the end. However, he tells us this story in a series of flashbacks, interviews, and visuals. That's where the interesting part really kicks in. Friends of Ryan are brought in through different forms of animation, and they explain to us just how Ryan's life has been.

Every little detail of this movie is flawless. We see a closeup of Ryan and his jaw-dropping realistic face, we see that when he smokes and freezes the camera circles him, exposing every millimeter of perfection, from the smoke to the back of his deformed head. Each shot is so well animated, and yet so deep that it's no wonder it won at the Oscars (ironically since Ryan Larkin was at the Oscars in 1969 and lost only to become unsuccessful and poor). "Ryan" shows us that you can make an animated short that isn't targeted at kids, and have it both entertaining and thought-provoking.

Three Colors: Blue (1993)

The first installment of the best trilogy ever created

[10/10 · 3 August 2006]

"Blue" (along with "White" and "Red") is a cinematic masterpiece and one of (if not the) most innovative and powerful films of the 90s. Director-writer Krzysztof Kieslowski suggests an anti-climactic approach to a more visual interpretation of both physical and mental pain. How does one cope with loss of a loved one? How do we continue living if we're totally alone? Kieslowski forms a narrative around the characters in the story, and around their whole existence. Although the story is a deep focus of the heroine or protagonist, it shows the world both through and outside of her eyes.

Juliette Binoche stars as Julie, a successful woman who has everything one would ever want, until one day when driving in a car with her family, the car crashes killing both her husband and daughter. After losing her family, Julie detaches herself from any memories, thoughts, and pain by giving up everything she's ever wanted, and starting a new life in an obscure area. Julie's deep passion always was and will be with music, and through her subconscious the music comes back and reminds her that she once was a happy woman.

In the first five minutes of the movie you're completely hypnotized. It opens up with a closeup shot of a wheel from a car spinning on the street as the car drives. The cinematography sucks you in and almost foreshadows a more saddening mood, suggesting this road ends before the car reaches the destination. We're only shown the back of the characters in the car and we're left with very little to think about in terms of their psychology. Kieslowski knew exactly what he was doing by opening the scene in such a way. When the car crashes (in the most detailed and realistic crash scene I've ever seen), the movie cuts to a closeup of someone's eye in which we can see a man's reflection. We automatically know we are inside someone's head and that they are almost too tired to look at the man. Kieslowski's incredibly cinematic opening scene is just the beginning of a visually stunning and deep film.

The eye is that of Julie's, who's lying in bed as the man tells her that her husband and her daughter are dead. We expect a big scene where the woman breaks down, smashing everything around her in a dramatic attempt to kill herself. But all we see is her shift her head and we know that she's suffering without having to show it. The idea of "Blue" is to question whether or not someone can start over and heal without going through the mourning process. We are lead to believe that Julie can, but something always comes back and reminds us that maybe we are wrong. Some scenes create this illusion by having the picture fade to black as we hear music then fades back to the picture. We all know that a technique in editing where fading to black is used to represent passage of time. But in this situation, it's nothing of the sort. Julie constantly blocks any memory from her mind, but the mind always pushes those memories out. Her husband was a composer and the music she suddenly hears is both a reflection of her past and a reminder to her that she is still alive.

Every minute of the movie we are exposed to the pain that Julie is experiencing. This is more of a statement than it is an expression though, since Kieslowski uses magnificent techniques to draw out this emotion. In one scene, Julie is swimming in a pool (where she goes every night to let out her physical energy so that she doesn't explode with everything she's been keeping in), and her husband's music starts playing in her head. She pauses and allows herself to sway back into the pool, in the part of it that represents death. Juliette Binoche describes this as a form of a fetus who's not yet pushed into the real world.

Kieslowski loves to pay attention to detail. Everything that's on the screen is a form of reality and a symbol of pain, suffering and isolation. For example, the scene in which Julie is in a restaurant drinking coffee exemplified just how much this woman is emotionally constricted. She hears music that she and her husband wrote, and she automatically shelters herself away from it, to disallow herself to have her memories come back. She quietly puts a cube into her coffee and watches the sugar turn brown. To some extent this is a perfect example of how not only Julie is withdrawn from life and others, but so are we, the audience.

There's no doubt that this allegory is a masterpiece in film-making. Kieslowski often moves in and out of the frame with the camera, showing us a world that we're meant to see, instead of just placing an element in a frame and keeping it there to blatantly smack us with the message. To some, "Blue" is a masterpiece and to me it's also inspiration. Everything from its incredible cinematography to the haunting and memorable score, is flawless. Whether or not "Blue" is the least favorite of the trilogy, it comes in at my list (and many other's) as one of the best movies of all time.

Napoleon Dynamite (2004)

One of the funniest movies ever created.. with some of the best one-liners!

[9/10 · 31 July 2006]

This is a movie that really takes a risk in comedy film-making. It's one that you either love or hate. Moreso hate if you're a pompous prick who can't handle anything other than classical Asian cinema and anything by Bergman and Fellini. "Napoleon Dynamite" is just what the name implies, a movie about a guy. Not really a normal guy, that wouldn't be funny at all. But not really an interesting guy either. Had I only thought about this idea, I'd have pictured a movie set in the 1920s where people weren't interesting at all compared to today, but still fun to watch and compare just how ridiculously boring they all were. In this case it's totally different. Napoleon (Jon Heder) is either living in the 80s or it's actually set in the 80s. We can't tell and it makes it all the more bizarre. He walks around, throws action figures out the window of a moving bus, doodles little creatures in his book, holds nonsense presentations in class and almost subconsciously lies about irrelevant things ('I told you! I was in Alaska with my uncle hunting wolverines!').

This is a story about your typical.. err, plain adolescent life in high school. Napoleon's grandmother breaks a bone and his self-centered uncle shows up, eats all of their stakes and makes Napoleon look like "A friggin' IDIOT!" The rest of the cast is also unaware of their own existence. As you sit there watching Pedro (Efren Ramirez) mumbling his words and shaving his head because he's hot, you soon realize that this is just as hilarious as it is unique. Napoleon's brother Kip (Aaron Ruell) chats online with "babes... all day long" and does nothing around the house, even though he's 32 and lives with his grandmother. Nothing these characters do has anything to offer in advancing the plot, but it still works. We still want to watch and observe these alien-like creatures.

I could write a whole paper on just how funny some of the quotes are from the movie, my favorite being "What the heck are you even talking about!" But to do so would be more fun for me and less fun for anybody else. What this movie has going for it isn't the depth of the plot, or direction or even the screenplay. It's the amazing and unforgettable performance from not just Jon Heder (though he may be the most memorable one), but also Aaron Ruell, Jon Gries as Uncle Rico, Efren Ramirez and Tina Majorino. This ensemble cast morph into their characters and play them as if they've lived them all their lives.

For many this is a movie that makes no sense. To me, it's a movie that makes perfect sense: we live under constant fear, and we need some sort of bizarre random humor to take our minds off everything from 9/11 to the end of the world! It's smart not to get too deep into this movie because you'll get so lost it would make your head spin. Instead, enjoy it as it is. A goofy comedy that offers some quotes that you can throw back and forth with your friends, and compete to see who can remember more. In the end, this isn't really a movie as much as it is an experience. You watch it and you talk to your friends about it for hours. That's what I call a talentless masterpiece.

Amores Perros (2000)

Breathtaking

[10/10 · 31 July 2006]

From the very first second of "Amores Perros", something happens. You get sucked into the movie and your eyes become aroused with the incredible direction. The movie is an awe-inspiring set of plots joined together in an amazing editing process that draws attention to every cinematic aspect possible in movie-making. This is a movie that I saw with very high expectations and ended up getting way more than I bargained for. From the stellar camera-work to the flawless cinematography, the movie is almost a friendly gesture in proper film-making.

The movie begins with a car chase. A kind of reminder of the movie Reservoir Dogs (especially with a dog in the back seat!), but quickly becomes something else. The swinging camera throws you back and forth and you actually feel as though you're about to lose control. A car chases from behind and then begins to shoot. You almost duck to avoid the bullets. The car gets closer and you press your foot against the ground hoping that the chased car will go faster. A bus comes out of nowhere and you hold your head hoping the car won't crash into it. It doesn't and it turns outrunning the chasing car, until finally the car crashes into another car. Inside the car we're introduced to Gael García (Octavio), who's later shown as a money hungry young man who uses his strong dog to fight and kill other dogs for money. He protects and seduces his sister-in-law, attempting to allude her away from her crazy husband. The car in which Octavio crashes into is Valeria (Goya Toledo), a supermodel who breaks her legs during the accident and eventually becomes an amputee. She struggles between living as a cripple, her husband who's had a history of being a disloyal husband, and her dog stuck under her floor. A homeless person passes by as the accident happens on his way to kill a man for a good price. He sees the accident and rescues the dog in Octavio's car, shelters him and breeds him. These three stories are connected by one single crash (this may be why so many people hate Paul Haggis' version), and their life is a fitting perspective of the movie name (Life's a Bitch).

The dogs in the movie are a strong motif that celebrate life, and undertake a more tragic idea of fate. Director Alejandro González Iñárritu knows that this isn't a story with three different short stories. He quietly connects them with subtlety, all the while reminding us that they are a result of something completely different: the tragedy that is life. Alejandro portrays class struggle in a realistic way. He shows us that the dirt poor will do anything for money, the working class will be happy but will go that extra mile to please someone, and the high class will always be unhappy unless they keep getting more and more. In one beautiful scene, the homeless guy - El Chivo (Emilio Echevarría) calls his daughter and tells her that life is unfair, that he didn't have money so he got arrested and couldn't face her until now. The message of the whole movie is so thought-provoking it almost makes you choke. The whole system of life is just one big circle and everyone is somehow struggling with the same problem.

Octavio is the fifth wheel in the movie. He becomes the reason for Valeria's accident, and El Chivo's sudden decision to not kill the man and finally face his own daughter. Within reason, Octavio is the central character. And although we never really know what happens to him after the accident (aside that his brother dies and he once again gets turned down by his sister-in-law and leaves), we almost know that the result will not be good. The same is the result with Valeria's story: we see her husband struck with anger as he finds out she is now an amputee, but we don't know if he will leave her or not. Especially because his former wife is begging him to come home. The only story we feel any optimism for is El Chivo's. Ironically, he's always been the one who has the word 'unfair' stamped on his forehead.

"Amores Perros" is as deep as it is cinematically beautiful. It shares a very interesting idea and thought about the world, and challenges us with eye-squinting visuals. Performances that leave your jaw dropped, and one hell of a thrill ride. One of the most suitable titles for a movie, it defines new cinema in a completely strict manner. Aside from that, it's a good thing there's a disclaimer saying "no dogs were harmed", otherwise it would have been hated by the critics.

Transamerica (2005)

The movie wouldn't have worked had it not been for Felicity!

[7/10 · 27 July 2006]

This is a mediocre film that tells a not so original story about a man becoming a woman. It's a story that sends a good message and provides some chuckles and heart-felt moments. The story itself lacks a lot of realism and a deeper approach to the complicated life a person can lead while transforming into another gender. The weak side of the movie though is immediately forgotten with the help of one incredible performance. One performance that was criminally robbed of the Oscar. That performance belongs to Felicity Huffman who plays Bree (or, previously Stanley). She wows us with an unforgettable posture and behavior, incredible ability to change her voice and of course her uncanny ability to act like a man who's acting like a woman.

The movie centers around Bree, a transsexual woman who finds out she/he has a son. To bail her son out of jail, Bree goes to New York City and pretends she's from a church. Kevin Zegers plays Bree's son, a troubled young man who lives all alone, getting his way around by being a hustler. He's rude, filthy, obnoxious and does drugs in front of a church lady. Bree and her son travel from New York to Los Angeles in hopes of finding him a nice place to live and getting there on time for her/his final male-to-female surgery.

There's not much depth in the movie itself to talk about, but a lot in the character. Bree gets knee-deep in complication by lying to her biological son and her psychiatrist, having people constantly ridicule her, and trying to forget any male part of her that ever existed. Her son, Toby's character is also very complex. We see that he's constantly getting himself into some sort of sexual danger because of his troubled past, his insecurity and his rebellious nature.

Felicity and Kevin have amazing chemistry. They are brilliant on screen and very believable as father/mother and son. They give a new meaning to the label 'dysfunctional family'. When Toby finally learns that the woman is really a man, their characters really grow and we can finally see that desperation they both were hiding.

With one of the worst Oscar snubs in the last couple of years, Felicity Huffman defines herself as one of the most talented and versatile actresses of today. The movie proves that even though you make a movie for nearly 1 million dollars, and even though you do it in only a couple of weeks, there is still a chance at incredible success.

Monster House (2006)

Respectively the best animated feature of this year

[9/10 · 27 July 2006]

Each year that one animated feature comes out that really sticks with me (Corpse Bride, Incredibles, Finding Nemo, Shrek). This year's been fairly boring, with mediocre to not-so-good movies coming out (Cars, Ice Age 2: The Meltdown, Doogle, Over the Hedge, Barnyard, The Ant Bully). It is simply a great movie for kids. Not for ones that are too young but definitely a nice gem for boys who like to get spooked. It's a thrilling ride that's as entertaining as it is stunningly visual. Gil Kenan's directorial debut comes in as somewhat of a shock, with his excellent attention to detail and incredible sense of direction with the spook-fest that is "Monster House".

The movie centers around DJ and Chowder, two pre-teen friends who suspect the house across the street is evil. After losing their ball on the yard, Mr. Nebbercracker (Steve Buscemi), the owner of the house, gets a heart attack while trying to scare the kids off. His sudden 'death' angers the house, making it turn into a creature with the windows as the eyes, and the door as the mouth.

The idea that a house has a face and walks around may sound stupid, but with the stellar animation it completely works. Kenan not only offers much laughter, but focuses on scaring us with what we all feared as kids (at least the ones who lived in Suburban homes), that one spooky house we were always afraid to go near. The house swallows people, blows steam from the chimney and plays dead when authority comes to check it out.

There's always some aspect of the film, at least in an animated feature that doesn't work. Take for example "Shrek" or "Shrek II". What bothered me is that they focused on making little children laugh (the donkey is NOT funny for someone who doesn't laugh at fart jokes). Or "The Incredibles", where the aspect of children having superpowers has been done to death. Aside from "Finding Nemo", "Monster House" is the one movie that has everything going for it. Though at times the humor is targeted at a much younger audience, there are instances where you know this is not a G-rated movie ('OK, let's cut the crap, I know that the owners left you some money... Now buy some Halloween candy').

DJ and Chowder are almost too realistic. Their mannerisms, their facial expressions, their behavior far reaches beyond any child star. The character of Zee (voiced by Maggie Gyllenhaal) is awe-inspiring, with her exaggerated body language that probably made Maggie herself blush. Nebbercracker is probably my favorite character. Voiced by the hilarious Buscemi, the seemingly rotten old man is both hilarious and scary. He's the heart of the story (pun intended) and the drive for the 'horror' aspect of the film.

We've all been there. We all loved to watch scary movies as kid. But not too scary, I'm talking about movies like "Goonies" and "Gremlins" and "The Addams Family". We all loved to watch scared kids taking on adults or monsters, with classics such as "Home Alone", and "Die Unendliche Geschichte (The Neverending Story)". This movie combines both of those in order to satisfy a younger audience and create a sense of nostalgia in the older demographic.

With one of the best animated scenes I've ever seen on the screen (at the end, with the dynamite being thrown), "Monster House" goes up there with "The Nightmare Before Christmas", "Edward Scissorhands", and "Beetle Juice" as a Burtonesque type of film that defines childhood desire for fear. Definitely a movie that can be seen more than just once, and the best 3D Animated Feature since "Finding Nemo", "Monster House" is a sure contender at the Academy Awards in 2007, and perhaps the most fun movie of the summer so far.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

The perfect war movie..

[9/10 · 25 July 2006]

"Saving Private Ryan" is one of those movies you can't believe didn't win the picture Oscar. That didn't stop it though from reaching such a huge audience and touch the lives of millions. The movie has one of the best introductions ever put on screen. The attack on D-Day is immensely powerful and painfully well directed. Steven Spielberg knows exactly how to make this movie strong and action-driven while focusing on the psychology on the characters and the cruelty of war.

The movie is about 8 men searching for a soldier by the name of James Ryan (Matt Damon), who's the last of four brothers still left alive. After the attack of D-Day most of the soldiers still suffer the war syndrome and seem very doubtful of finding one person in a whole war-zone. Back at home, Ryan's mother gets a letter about three out of four of her sons dying in war, and begs the soldiers to find her last one.

It's a beautiful film that depicts war as it should be. Vicious, disgusting, violent, heartbreaking, unfair, and tragic. Spielberg's use of the hand-held camera is almost breathtaking, as he gets right into the action and swings left and right to create a sense of realism and panic. His incredible editing and beautiful cinematography is unforgettable and is strongly influential.

Tom Hanks gives an incredible performance as Captain John Miller, a dedicated and loyal soldier who's on the verge of losing his mind. The pressure from being a captain and enduring the worst attack in history sends him in mental torture, trying to covering his pain and suffering from the rest of the soldiers.

The story doesn't focus on the heroic aspect, but rather the truth about war. Spielberg knows that even though you get to know the characters, they have a chance of dying. There is a unique subtlety in that these characters seem to have the drive to save private Ryan so they could go home.

Definitely one of the best directed films in a long time, "Saving Private Ryan" is a bright gem in recent film-making. Robbed of the Picture Oscar, the movie is a true representation of D-Day and post D-Day. It's a movie that inspires above all else.

Dogville (2003)

A great movie to watch just once in your life

[8/10 · 23 July 2006]

"Dogville" is a movie that some may call a play. It's set on a large production stage, the houses are marked with chalk, and there are close to no props. However, the movie works in a couple of ways. Director Lars von Trier prepares us for this theater-based movie by placing a heading before anything starts. It states that what we are about to see is a prologue and that we are about to get introduced to the characters. Then a narrator comes on and we are shown the whole 'city' of Dogville. This narration is simple yet highly descriptive, and helps the audience participate in much of the visual aspect of the movie.

The setting seems isolated and withdrawn from any major city life. The townspeople all have different jobs and they all seem to participate and communicate only amongst each other. They are the only source of energy in the whole town. Nothing other than the characters is real, and nothing at first seems out of the ordinary. This is a very original idea in that movies like this only work if you have the right script. Luckily, Lars von Trier wrote the perfect script for a movie like this.

We are first introduced to the key character, Tom Edison (Paul Bettany), a writer who's having trouble writing his latest novel. The rest of the cast is almost clueless to anything but their own, repetitive life. During one night, Tom sits outside as a beautiful woman wonders through their town. She hides behind a mountain and Tom offers to keep her safe, as she is followed by gangsters. She introduces herself as Grace (Nicole Kidman) and immediately there's a sense of chemistry between the two. The rest of the townspeople seem incredulous and oblivious to Grace's appearance, and all want her to prove herself trustworthy of staying in their town. To do so, Grace goes door to door asking everyone if they need help with their chores. At first they seem reluctant, but soon rely only on her to take care of their work for them.

The movie runs for almost 3 hours and for a good reason. There is a definite establishment of character from each person in this movie, and a high drive for all of their actions. It's a way of presenting a society that's been isolated their whole life. We meet Chuck (Stellan Skarsgård) who also came to Dogville from a different town. At first he resents Grace but later uses her for more than just work. As each person in the town blames Grace for no reason other than that she hasn't lived there all her life, Grace falls victim to rape, imprisonment and slavery. All of this presents a very powerful idea about an isolated society during the great depression.

The aspect that sticks out about the movie is definitely the acting. Nicole Kidman's risky performance is brilliant as she subtly yet flowingly portrays a confused young woman who's falling apart from her past and from her present. She beautifully steals the spotlight (no pun intended) as the gorgeous hard-working stranger that everyone uses for their own sick pleasure.

Often portrayed as an anti-American with his false portrayal of the society, Lars von Trier creates something so original and unique, that it almost dares not enter mainstream.

Talk to Her (2002)

Simply one of the best foreign films in a long time!

[10/10 · 20 July 2006]

The movie opens with a beautiful play. Two women dressed in night gowns are dancing around in an area filled with chairs. A man comes out and throws the chairs around to make room for these women to walk around freely. He's saddened, but we don't know why. These women seem almost too afraid to open their eyes, and too full of life to not move around even though there's so much in their way.

This is a perfectly suitable opening for the movie. Two women, both seemingly lifeless, a man, saddened, helping them even though they don't know it. He gets a sort of satisfaction and escape from his troubled life by helping these needy women. And we know that even if these women had their eyes open, they would never be able to love this man for who he is. "Talk to Her" is so deep and thought-provoking that every second of the movie puts some sort of spell on you.

Inside the theater, we meet Marco Zuluaga (Darío Grandinetti), an Argentenian who cries during the performance. He later meets a striking female bull-fighter and quickly jumps at the chance of writing an article about her. He follows her, helps her, keeps her company, all while suffering from his previous relationship. We then get introduced to Benigno Martín (Javier Cámara)who nurses a young woman in a coma. He explains that he's been doing it for over four years and has no desire to stop. After Marco's new love gets injured in a bull-fight and goes into a coma, she is placed in the room next to Benigno. The two men meet, comment about an encounter at the play, and in a series of flashbacks and flash-forwards, their stories get woven together in a strange twist of fate and destiny.

Director-writer Pedro Almodóvar's double nomination for "Talk to Her" is undoubtedly deserving. As is his win for Best Original Screenplay. He fuses together such a magnificent story of friendship, betrayal, terror and love. Marco's story both touches us and inspires us, whereas Benigno's story sends shivers down our spine. But in the end, these two still befriend each other, and even after Benigno's disturbing pull at impregnating the comatose woman, we still sense some sort of connection between the two.

A definite example of how European cinema is so important in modern life, and just how a complicated situation can turn even more complicated, "Talk to Her" is a gem in both storytelling, directing and acting. It's a movie that uses normal approaches to common situations and furthers that by going that extra mile. It shows just how far taking care of someone can go, and how people can be used even when most vulnerable.

Last Days (2005)

Not that impressive.

[5/10 · 20 July 2006]

Some would say that "Last Days" is definitely not a movie for everyone, and that some may find it way too avant-garde to even consider it a movie. This would be the case if even the slightest amount of effort went into actually telling a story. I've seen countless avant-garde films. And of course they're all intriguing in some way. However, with the slightest bit of brainpower, it's easy to figure out that "Last Days" is as pretentious as a movie can possibly get.

The movie is based on Kurt Cobain's last 48 hours before he committed suicide by shooting himself. Yes, Gus Van Sant's take on a trilogy about death is very interesting, and the first two installments, "Gerry" and "Elephant" are often credited as 'future of film-making'. Of course, "Elephant" being far more superior. The Cannes Golden Palme winner in 2003 instantly blew me away with the use of realism and minimalism to create an unidentifiable movement in the film. What worked for "Elephant" though is that it had some drive, it had that unique quality to it, that surreal juxtaposition of the foreshadowing plot and visual subtlety. In "Last Days" though, it almost fails to determine the motive and the drive. There is absolutely nothing that keeps you watching, and the very mellow feel of the film nearly puts you to sleep.

In one almost painful scene, a long panning shot shows an outside window of the house at which Blake (Michael Pitt) is in playing instruments. The shot is nearly 8 minutes long with absolutely no point. What we see in that shot is an entire sequence of bizarre sounds that supposedly come from Blake's head. The rest of the movie is like one long mime act. Blake doesn't speak, but mumbles, he dresses in women's clothing and points a gun at people at which point they're unable to figure out what happened. The scenes in which Blake is high are unwatchable. Not because it's disturbing, but because it takes the word "slow" to a whole new level. Yes, we want to feel that Blake can't function properly because of the amount of drugs he's taken in, but there are other, more effective ways to go about with this.

Gus Van Sant wants us not to focus on one aspect of the film, but to ask questions. What will happen next? Why am I watching this? Where is this going? Quite frankly, I didn't care. I just wanted it to end. Even in the very first scene, we look at Blake as if he's some sort of caveman with no desire to live. He's torn by the pressures of living in the spotlight. Yes, we get it, Kurt Cobain offed himself because of that, but did he really run around a forest and his house like he's never seen civilization? And if not, what purpose does this serve? Apart from the slow and almost non-advancing plot, there are a few things in the movie that really work. For example, the use of repeated scenes from different angles at different sequences is a really good way of keeping whatever attention is left in the viewer. Also, the sound is brilliant. The non-diegetic turns to diegetic in another scene, and the frequent use of weird sound effects really helps the whole minimalistic style of the movie.

But to say this is a movie of any desperation or hope is a big mistake. Not only does it shell itself from submission into normality, but it also proves that filmmakers can sometimes go overboard with avant-garde or experimental directing. "Last Days" is a film that above all others raises the bar of obscurity. It's not something that should ever be influential nor should it be duplicated. My guess is from the fame that brought him from "Elephant", Van Sant's next step was to create something ridiculously awful.

Bubble (I) (2005)

This bubble doesn't burst!

[9/10 · 15 July 2006]

Another installment in one of my favorite types of film-making, following the stellar success of Gus Van Sant's masterpiece "Elephant" comes a psychological story about the lives of three people. This is a story that reaches into the future of film-making and detaches itself from any clichéd characters. It's a story that places the audience right in the center of three regular people, with ordinary lives. The uber-director Steven Soderbergh goes beyond the ordinary independent directing and focuses more on the situation, rather than the outcome.

Soderbergh casts the three main roles to locals of the town they shoot in, and uses their actual houses as their houses in the movie. He carefully chooses these people to create a sense of realism, and subtlety. Martha (Debbie Doebereiner), although previously never acted in her life, gives a great performance as the jealous(?) factory-working middle-aged single woman who normally stays home and takes care of her father, whom she lives with. Her inexplicable need for possession of her best friend and co-worker Kyle (Dustin Ashley) could be creepy in your typical Hollywood film, but with the realistic approach to this little film, we don't ask questions.

From the moment the movie starts, we observe the characters as they go about their boring ordinary lives. Martha wakes up, makes food for her father, picks up Kyle and goes to the doll factory where they work. They spend their lunch hour talking about nothing, but we still watch to fulfill our voyeuristic needs. We then get introduced to Rose (Misty Wilkins), who gets hired at the factory and automatically feel obligated to use everyone. She smiles at Kyle the moment they look at each other, non-apologetically seeking some sort of play-toy. A doll, if you will. Rose brings some life to the duo-turned-trio, and we quickly learn that Martha doesn't want her around.

From there, the movie doesn't speed up but offers a sort of safer route for some level of suspense. Martha's asked to take care of Rose's baby as Rose and Kyle go out on a date. Rose always seems to have motives. She befriends Martha to take care of her daughter, and to give her rides to her other job, and she befriends Kyle to take advantage of his shy, passive behavior.

The movie quickly shifts, but in the same way Van Sant's "Elephant" did when the children decided to shoot up the school. Rose steals money from Kyle, goes home and gets confronted by her ex-boyfriend whom she also stole money from. Martha sees the event, and the next day Rose turns up dead. Three possible witnesses, three possible motives, but exactly who murdered Rose? Soderbergh knows you'll ask these questions, but also knows what to do with the film to make it flow and keep it realistic.

The dialogue in the film is massively realistic in that the actors actually speak their own words. They get told point A and point B, then rely on their own instincts to create the mood. We observe these characters as if we were watching a documentary about nothing. They eat, they sleep, they smoke, they work. And while the murder of Rose seems almost random, especially because it happens nearly 50 minutes into the 73-minute film, we realize that there has been an obvious foreshadow of the event.

A magnificent film that avoids any massive advertisement and profit, and a true masterpiece in the future of film-making, "Bubble" represents an amateur-style movie that's so much more. In this day and age, where big box-office movies are the central aspect of success, movies such as "Bubble" and even "United 93" definitely need a large amount of recognition.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)

An instant reminder of what a movie really is!

[10/10 · 12 July 2006]

Civil War, gold is up for grabs, and three dirty cowboys all want it. Seems like a regular Western. It's a good thing film-directing God Sergio Leone and cowboy-extraordinaire Clint Eastwood paired up, because in that genre, there isn't a better match. To this day, there hasn't been a movie that comes close to the depth and craft that his movie produces.

It's a beautifully woven-together piece of cinema that Sergio knows what to do with. He creates a feeling of both intensity and humor by portraying the three key characters with one trait only; The Good (Clint Eastwood), The Bad (Lee Van Cleef), and The Ugly (Eli Wallach). These characters follow their own instincts, whether it be good or bad, and let nothing stand in their way of recovering the gold. The only problem is, they have to work together to get it. One knows the place of the gold (a graveyard), and one knows which grave it's buried under. Just how long does it take until the cowboys let their pride and betrayal ruin their treasure hunt? Though the beautiful directing is immensely distinct and original, the movie is very plot-driven. The characters don't matter to us. We could have The Good play The Ugly and it would still be the same outcome. But from Sergio's vision, comes a truly magnificent submission into the psychology of the Civil War civilians and determined, gun-shooting varmints.

At first, we meet the characters by obviously seeing them do what they're intended to do. The Ugly robs a store, The Bad kills a few people, and The Good saves someone's life. After that, we see that The Ugly and The Good are actually working together to do what dirty cowboys do best; collect their money. Upon finding out about the treasure, all three characters become The Determined, and both work together and hang each other by the necks (literally) to find the gold.

From beginning to end, "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" is utterly entertaining and unique. It can be called both a Western and a War movie. As the plot develops and thickens, we see more of the setting than in all other Westerns combined. Everything is twice as big, and everything is twice as dirty. A definite classic, that defined cinema in more than one way, with its memorable score, to the never before seen directing, the movie stands as one of (if not the) best movies of all time.

Eraserhead (1977)

This is a movie that REALLY stands out. A little too much.

[6/10 · 7 July 2006]

I couldn't help but think one thing while watching this movie: "so... this is where Tim Burton got his influence". I've seen all kinds of movies, some I thought were brilliant, some overly pretentious. "Eraserhead", though brilliantly directed, lacks a lot of support and relevance, and overtly attempts to be deeply symbolic. I remember when I enjoyed creepy characters and random disturbing scenes, but this film seemingly dumbs down the audience in an almost conscious manner.

The story centers around Henry Spencer (Jack Nence) who lives in a world that either resembles a nightmare or a different dimension. His days revolve around walking around his industrial town, and sitting in his small quiet apartment suspiciously observing every angle as if he's never been there. He's told that his girlfriend (?) awaits him at her house for dinner, and with hesitation he joins her, again, in an awkward suspicious way. The girlfriend, named Mary X (Charlotte Stewart) lives with her parents and grandmother who follow lifestyles of some impulsive serial killers. After Henry finds out that he and girlfriend Mary X have a premature baby, he falls head first into a world of mayhem, delusion, and sexual provisions. His girlfriend gives birth to a mutant baby, and leaves him to take care of it by himself.

"Eraserhead" is really unique, but over-stylized and pretentiously dangerous. In the world we live in today, an audience will fall in love with any movie that has some level of cult status. While I'll agree that the directing is superb, especially on such a low budget, the story itself lacks any drive. Albeit the movie has a massive creepy feel to it, from the subtle build up of bizarre sound effects to the sinister-like score, it leaves you empty and cold asking yourself what you had just seen. I've never been one to hold a good deep screenplay that leaves you thinking for hours against the movie, but in this case there's just way too much false instinctiveness.

The mutant baby is a motif that the movie attempts to force in order for us to feel scared and shocked. And in the center of it all, the baby looks more like a dinosaur than a disfigured, dream-like figure. Then there's the "creepy" girl who sings a song about life in heaven, which Henry listens to for comfort. Her presence is almost unnecessary and oblique, making you tilt your head back more asking "why?" is this a film that observes the life of one man? Did he suffer from a traumatic experience? We don't know, and director-writer David Lynch seems to think we don't care. The movie opens up with a scene of what seems to be an asteroid and an overlapping image of Henry floating around. He then wakes up on the road and sets out in Chaplin-like posture, passing and dismissing anything out of the ordinary. In one scene, he invites his next door neighbor in and lets her seduce him into sleeping with her. They then end up in Henry's bed, falling deep into what seems to be water. A pretentious goof might say it's an excellent way of showing sexual desire and an atmosphere that seems to give Henry the relaxing feeling he's always wanted. I say it's the first thing that popped into Lynch's head.

Half way through, I looked at my watch asking if it'll be over soon. Really, you don't have to watch the rest to get the basic idea of the whole thing. However I stuck around for the beautiful cinematography and excellent underrated directing. Lynch uses his camera and works with it like an Axe murderer would with a good victim. He separates reality with non-diegetic sound that the main character can actually hear, and really knows how to handle the framing in each shot.

I watched the extra features and David Lynch put into words what I thought was a true representation of this film: "I have no idea how the idea came to me, or when it came to me". How could you? It's completely random and spontaneous. It also suffers from a weak ending, Henry gives up and murders his baby only to see the little asteroid -- or his shell of life -- burst and explode, leaving him to go into heaven with the strange butt-face girl who sings in his radiator. Well, problem solved, kill the itch and join peace for eternity. I think that's the idea the movie was conveying. As for the title itself, it's really pretty interesting. "Eraserhead" refers to the term 'erase your head,' which means to get rid of any awareness or consciousness of what you're doing. Something Lynch must have done when he was writing the script.

Superman Returns (2006)

Tired of Superman?? Don't think so!!

[7/10 · 28 June 2006]

Many skeptics believed "Superman Returns" would potentially suffer due to a lack of quality and genuine originality, ripping off the other Superman-related TV Shows and movies. And although at times the movie did seem to have certain parallels to other superhero movies, the movie didn't get bruised in any way. It's almost like a crash; we see the sudden adrenaline rush in the most fascinating way. Superman is their hero and they are his family. Metropolis crumbles under the weight of hopelessness and vulnerability now that their savior has disappeared."Superman Returns" to planet Earth and once again reunites with Lois Lane to finally (?) put an end to Lex Luthor. This is a story of hope, survival and (as tacky as it seems) family and love.

Five years after Superman disappears (and, coincidentally, so does Clark Kent), he falls directly into his earth-parents' farm after being absorbed into a meteor. He quickly recovers and goes back to work at the Daily Planet where he finds out Lois Lane had been married and now has a child. Elsewhere, Lex Luthor is now out of prison and married to an old billionaire who signs away her possessions with the last breath she has. Lex takes the money, and finds large crystals buried in Superman's Fortress of Solitude that can give him power beyond belief.

"Superman Returns" is a powerful ode about the most powerful and popular superhero ever. With edge of your seat action sequences, and some plot twists, the movie is as powerful as The Man of Steel himself. What makes this movie more interesting is how we see weakness and vulnerability in Superman. He suffers from the now-healed society which no longer includes Superman, and in one awe-inspiring scene, he is dragged across water and dirt by a human and we see just how humanistic this one man can be.

Director Bryan Singer directed this movie almost flawlessly -- and it's no surprise, him being the director of the first two X-men movies. His display of special effects is uncanny, paying tribute to the Spider-man movies with both flying sequences and creating almost a whole city in CGI. Brandon Routh was a really good choice for Superman. His entire face seems almost metal and mannequin-like.

There are a few plot holes in Superman though. It does not really start off where the first three ended off. Now Lois doesn't know Clark Kent is Superman, and it doesn't really explain how and where Superman came from, and where he'd been for five years. However there is an obvious motivation for Superman's drive, and a definite character development. Not to mention a footage of Marlon Brando himself.

In all, "Superman Returns" is a fun, thrilling, nostalgic movie that keeps you wanting more and more. And while being compared to classics such as the Reeves franchise and even the Hatcher/Cain phenomena, the movie stands alone as the most powerful of them all.

Some Like It Hot (1959)

Very funny!

[7/10 · 27 June 2006]

"Some Like it Hot" is the first of its kind. By that I mean that countless movies followed with the same plot: men can't do something being men so they dress up as women only to fall for a drop-dead gorgeous woman who just so happens to be really close with them. This movie however is the first to do this and does it in the best way possible.

What's good about "Some Like it Hot" is that it stays away from clichés and doesn't center around friendship and heartbreak, but moreso on the humor aspect of the movie. Almost every scene in the movie keeps you watching and throws you in a hysterical fit. It's a movie that shouldn't be over-analyzed, and should be watched solely for entertainment.

Jack Lemon is brilliant in his Oscar-nominated performance as the witty and eccentric Dephne, and plays his character with such convincing mannerism that we tend to forget it's actually a man. In one hilarious and unforgettable scene, 'Daphne' convinces himself he's a woman by telling Joe 'Josephine' (Tony Curtis) that he's never been happier because a millionaire proposed to him. It is both comical and original, showing that you can only pretend to be someone for so long.

Marilyn Manroe co-stars as Sugar, a sexy and beautiful alcoholic musician who falls for Joe's third identity, Junior. This creates an even more comic-genius plot, having countless identities running around trying to stay in character. It definitely defines comedy brilliance.

The whole concept of the story of "Some Like it Hot" is complete comic material. This movie allowed the three main actors to really reach out and play around with their roles and to have fun while doing it. It's not often that a movie features a lot of improvisation in order for the character to feel both real and staged.

Influencing countless movies, comedies and romantic dramas alike, "Some Like it Hot" still stands as one of the best comedies of all time. And for a good reason.