Sunday
07Feb2010

Dr. Strangelove

DateSunday, February 7, 2010 at 12:00PM

Release Year: 1964

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Review: Simply one of the best satires ever made.  There is not a single wasted scene, and everything hits squarely where it is supposed to.  It's both unsettling, and hilarious, the perfect mix for a political satire.  Kubrick is an incredible director, and letting him lead you down this twisted path toward world annihilation is fascinating.  Peter Sellers is the best he has ever been, making his characters not seem to over the top, but all fascinating and indistinguishable from one another.  'Dr. Stranglove' is endlessly quotable and watchable.  It goes beyond great and into iconic.  I think the 'biting satire' mold was cast from this Kubrick masterpiece.
Rating: 5/5



AuthorAlex Stajos | CommentPost a Comment |
tagged in , ,
Friday
05Feb2010

Hot Fuzz

DateFriday, February 5, 2010 at 12:00PM

 

 

Release Year: 2003

Director: Edgar Wright

Review: 'Hot Fuzz' is a unique film in that it is a satire that takes itself seriously, but in a way that completely works.  It stands on its own as being a very solid cop movie.  Yes the plot slowly unwinds to become absolutely absurd, but it never seems out of place.  A lot of times in satire there are throw away bits that are just meant to get a laugh.  This never seemed to be the case here.  Everything was done for a reason, and it engaged me in plot first, and comedy second.  It did start to lose me towards the end by overreaching into the ridiculous, but I went along with it anyway.  There isn't too much biting satire here, so much as clever cliches and sharp wit.  It's visually crisp and the action is tight.  It's a very solid action comedy that has great replay value.
Rating: 3.5/5



AuthorAlex Stajos | CommentPost a Comment |
tagged in , ,
Wednesday
03Feb2010

Dogville

DateWednesday, February 3, 2010 at 12:00PM

Release Year: 2003

Director: Lars von Trier

Review: Stark. Barren.  Cold.  These are just a few of the adjectives that jump to mind when describing "Dogville", a film that explores the depths of human depravity.  A city girl gets chased by the mob into a small rural town, and seeks refuge.  What follows is one of the most unpleasant and bleak examinations of humanity that I've seen on film.  Director Lars von Trier seems to revel in stripping away any visual pleasure from the viewer.  This is a movie about suffering and misfortune and he doesn't want you to be comfortable while watching it.

From the beautiful opening overhead shot looking down into Dogville, you know this is not going to be an ordinary film.  The entire world that is shown is this town called Dogville.  The 'town' is simply a stage with primitive lines and sparse props as a rudimentary mockup of what resembles a town.  Every person in Dogville is known, plays a part in the story and can usually be seen at all times during the entire film.  No one can hide.  Everything is open. A theme which von Trier repeatedly comes back to.    This is a visually stagnant film.  There is no reprieve for the viewer from the hell in which Grace(Nicole Kidman) can't escape.  We are forced to focus on the acting, the suffering, the characters, rather than any visual eye candy.  It is an effective technique.  When stripped right down we can see the characters for who they are without distractions from clever camera techniques and dynamic lighting.

This is not an uplifting film.  It shows humanity in the worse possible light.  Evil and debauchery can arise anywhere, and no person is above stooping to incredible lows.  The film takes its time with this theme.  It does eventually pay off, with an incredibly affecting climax, but it doesn't make the journey any more pleasant.  In fact, I hated this movie while I was watching it.  It took all I had in me not to shut it off.  I hated all the characters.  I couldn't understand why they made the choices they did.  I was frustrated, angry and impatient.  However by the time it ended, I couldn't help but let a smile creep on my face, I had been reeled in.  It had worked.  This movie has a message, and it is delivered effectively, even if it is by means of an unconventional mechanism.  I have a hard time recommending this movie as it is so unpleasant to watch.  And yet, having had time to reflect upon it, I look at it more fondly since it has stuck with me.  The acting is great.  The actors rely on nothing but their acting and it carries the film.  I have no interest in ever revisiting the film, but I am glad that I have watched it. Sometimes the harder the pill is to swallow the more effective it is.
Rating: 4/5

AuthorAlex Stajos | CommentPost a Comment |
tagged in
Monday
01Feb2010

The Warriors

DateMonday, February 1, 2010 at 12:00PM

Release Year: 1979

Director: Walter Hill

Review: I had always seen the trailer and clips for 'The Warriors' and it always seemed to have the makings of an incredible, yet awful, corny action movie.  And boy did it deliver.  The story at its core is a simple chase film.  In a surreal world set in New York City, and ruled by colorful gangs, one marked gang has to make it back from the Bronx to their home turf of Cony Island.  Not such a simple task when every police officer and gang member in the city is after you.  The magic of the movie is the dystopian gang world that is created and the, often hilariously outfitted, gangs that control the city.  This isn't high cinema. Its corny, but also a lot of fun.  I can't see going into this movie and trying to take it seriously, and I don't think they set out to make that kind of movie.  It is meant to take place in a fantasy, comic book type of setting.  The dialog is stiff and the fight scenes lacking, but its something to laugh at, quote, and have a good time with.  I couldn't help but get swept up with the story and this gangs journey.  This is when campy works, when despite its short comings, its still a pretty decent movie in its own right.  It was exactly what I was hoping it would be, and maybe even more.

Rating: 3.5/5

AuthorAlex Stajos | CommentPost a Comment |
tagged in ,
Thursday
28Jan2010

Burden of Dreams

DateThursday, January 28, 2010 at 12:00PM

"Without dreams we would be cows in a field, and I don't want to live like that. I live my life or I end my life with this project."

Release Year: 1982

Director: Les Blank

Review: To understand Herzog films you must first understand Herzog.  This is probably an oversimplification since I'm not sure anyone can understand Herzog.  He is an absolutely driven, purely passionate and completely insane character.  Herzog the man is just as interesting as his films.  To truly appreciate his films, you need to read the stories about making the film.  There may not be a better example of Herzog, the glorious madman, then 'Burden of Dreams' a documentary on the making of 'Fitzcarraldo'.  Herzog takes no shortcuts, makes no excuses, and just goes for it.  If you ever wanted too see what it means to really throw yourself into your work then look no further than Herzog's obsession with completing this film.  This behind the scenes look is absolutely captivating.
Rating: 4/5

AuthorAlex Stajos | CommentPost a Comment |
tagged
Tuesday
26Jan2010

The Last Emperor

DateTuesday, January 26, 2010 at 12:00PM

Release Year: 1987

Director: Bernardo Bertolucci

Review: Biopics can be messy, and even a director as talented as Bernardo Bertolucci can stumble in relaying the details of even an extraordinary life without becoming bogged down in the minutia.  That is ultimately my problem with the film.  It was long, and it felt long.  It is absolutely beautiful to behold.  The colors explode on the screen.  The costumes and scenery are overwhelmingly spectacular.  The problem was, I never felt like any message was trying to be conveyed, or at least not one I could identify with. 

The the story itself is interesting at least in premise.  I'm very interesting in 'the last' of something.  An end of an era, of a way of life.  And that is very well represented in the film, but ultimately I didn't become vested in the emperor in the least.  The rest of the characters drifted in and out of the film with little emotional impact on the emperor or for me.  For someone who held such a high position, he was a bit of a pushover and not all that interesting.  There was very little to grab a hold of here.  The cultural battle that could have been the focal point of the movie, was present, but decidedly underdeveloped.  The biggest flaw however was the dead dialog and forced exposition.  Especially in the first third of the film, the acting and dialog was downright uncomfortable.  It felt like they had a lot to say, but were rushed and just decided to try to cram as much background into as few lines of dialog as possible.  It came off unnatural and forced and completely clashed with the elegance and authenticity of the visuals.  In the end, that's what I took away from this. It has stunning visuals.  The story is lacking, but vibrancy is not.
Rating: 3/5

 

AuthorAlex Stajos | CommentPost a Comment |
tagged in ,
Sunday
24Jan2010

Crazy Heart

DateSunday, January 24, 2010 at 05:22PM

Release Year: 2009

Director: Scott Cooper

Review: So we have Jeff Bridges starring in a 'The Wrestler'esque story of personal redemption.  I'm in.  The tale of Bad Blake, a former country music star who is reduced to playing bowling alleys and who spends more hours drunk than sober.  He lives the life he chose to live, and it will kill him if he keeps it up.  This is a story about self worth, and examining what is important in life.  Its certainly not the first story of its kind, but it works in its own way.  It is true to its name, it has heart.  It hooks you in and invests you in Bad's fortune.

Lets not mince words, this movie is Jeff Bridges' showcase.  He is a talented actor and is given a fantastic character to portray.  The movie is made or broken on his performance and he comes through in a big way.  Authenticity should be defined by his performance.  Not only is he a talented actor, but he is a talented musician, and that comes through.  The haggard, but ever enduring 'Bad' is personified by Bridges.  The man appears to have one foot in the grave, and yet, when it counts, always manages to come through.  He may not be accountable, but he is always reliable to show up eventually.  This film is all about Bridges, and all about the music.  Both are fantastic.  I'm no country music fan, but seeing the passion, pain and heartache in the way Bridges performs the songs shines through any musical bias.  Bridges goes beyond believable and becomes indistinguishable from his character and the performance alone is worth the price of admission. 

Beyond Bridges, the movie does stand up fairly well on its own.  Its a pretty straight forward plot.  It's more of a character study then a gripping story.  Maggie Gyllenhaal plays a fine love interest to the seemingly untamable Bad.  It's a good performance that is dwarfed by a much greater role.  The main problem with the film is that it is a bit predictable and plain.  This isn't the first movie of its type.  Its pretty well established the road in which it will take, and it never really veers from it.  At a certain point it becomes a bit redundant, and it almost seems like its just going through the motions, trying to put in a few more scenes for Bridges to chew on.  There is a great deal of hope for Bad, but some of the effectiveness is lost by dragging it out and being so dead on.

While decent on its own, the reason to see this film is for Jeff Bridges.  He is given a very stereotyped character and manages to make him interesting putting his own touches in.  It is a heartwarming movie, and one that is pleasant, if not bordering on great throughout, but runs out of steam towards the end.  It did make me enjoy and appreciate country music, something I wouldn't have thought possible, so it gets points just for that.  It lacks the originality and tight pace that would make it a great film, but I can't argue with a very good film with great performances.

Rating: 4/5

Award Consideration: While I can't rule out a best picture nomination, its a very long shot to win.  Nor does it deserve to.  It's a good movie, but not the best of the year.  Far more movies are more well rounded and bring more to the table.

The obvious award is Jeff Bridges for best actor.  He will be nominated, and will most likely win.  Rourke was robbed last year in a similar role, but Bridges has his past working for him.  He has been a great actor in so many movies, and this appears to be his time.

Finally, the movie brought home a Golden Globe for best song.  I forsee the same honor for the Oscars.  Again, the movie is all about the music, so its fitting it'd win this category.

AuthorAlex Stajos | CommentPost a Comment |
tagged in , ,
Sunday
24Jan2010

Seven Pounds

DateSunday, January 24, 2010 at 12:00PM

Release Year: 2008

Director: Gabriele Muccino

Review: At it's core 'Seven Pounds' has a good premise dealing with the complicated emotions of a man who no longer has the will to live.  The problem is the impact is muddled with a clumsy plot progression and dramatic missteps.  Handling a delicate thematic premise with so little subtlety completely slashed my connection with the characters and their plight.  It was if director Gabriele Muccino was trying to hammer in a frail nail with a sledge hammer, ruining what could have been poignant moments.  When these heartfelt moments come off so on-the-nose, it completely takes away from the experience.  By the end I felt myself feeling no pity for the characters, more because it felt like I was being force fed emotion rather then experiencing it.  From the opening scene there was little doubt what Will Smith's character's motivation was, or how the story would turn out.  It never veered from the predictable.  I felt like I was being baited and I wasn't going to bite. There are salvageable messages that can be taken away from the film, and the acting by Rosario Dawson saves the film in the end, but on a whole I was disappointed that such clumsy directing took away so much.
Rating: 3/5

AuthorAlex Stajos | CommentPost a Comment |
tagged in ,
Friday
22Jan2010

The White Ribbon (Das weisse Band)

DateFriday, January 22, 2010 at 09:56PM

Release Year: 2009

Director: Michael Haneke

Review: There is something unnerving about mischievous, evil, children, and yet in Michael Haneke's quiet, methodic, drama they are almost pitied.  In this dour German examination of morality, Hankeke takes a hands off approach to the judgement of the events and doesn't bias the viewer one way or another on how to view the circumstances.  Taking place in a small town directly before the outbreak of World War I, it's not only a a fascinating examination of depths of human depravity, but an ominous peek into the mindset of a country about to plunge deep into its darkest period.

Haneke doesn't soften the bleakness of the story, it would be too kind.  The subject matter is cold, and so is the film.  While beautifully shot, its all in black and white, a constant reminder of the coldness of the people within the small town.  This town, much like in Von Trier's 'Dogville', on the surface looks like a quaint, tight-knit rural community, is actually a hell in of itself.  The similarities to 'Dogville' don't end there, the theme of how low humans can go, even towards one in their own community, is the major point in both.  Also similar is the stark, harsh, visually pallid take each director used.  Von Trier went with a minimal stage set, and Haneke used lack of color, but each managed to stay visually interesting despite their limitations.  Haneke doesn't go quite as far to inflict an uncomfortable viewing experience however.  It was bleak, but not uncomfortably so.  Unfortunately it also was not as interesting.  I often found myself bored, knowing where the film was going and not being challenged.  It was if a niche was found and Haneke never left it.  There is a great deal explored, but in a very Laissez-faire attitude, laid out in a structured manner with subtle undertones which lets the viewer come to their own moral conclusions.

 

 

I didn't enjoy this movie while watching it, and I think that was the point.  Its a type of movie that becomes better the more you reflect on it.  However, it has been a week since I viewed it and I have done plenty of reflecting, and I still can't say I enjoyed it.  I can appreciate what it was trying to do, but I'm not sure of the effectiveness of it. Haneke certainly has a gift for subtlety, but I wish more was done with the themes at hand.  It is certainly a beautiful, and thought provoking film but one that never quite hit home.  There isn't a single scene that sticks out in my mind, none that really connected with me.   It had all the pieces, but falls a bit flat, and while a good film, a disappointment none the less.

Rating: 3/5

Award Consideration: 'The White Ribbon' has already collected its share of awards, winning the Palme d'Or at Cannes, and picking up the best foreign language film at both the BAFTA awards and the Golden Globes.  It is a lock to be nominated, and will all but certainly win for best foreign picture at the Oscars as well.  Without knowing the list of nominees its hard to call whether or not its deserving.  Out of the films nominated at the Golden Globes I had only seen 'Broken Embraces' which similarly was a disappointment to me.  I'm eager to know the nominations, so I can begin my foreign film mini-marathon.  The category is always a favorite of mine.

AuthorAlex Stajos | CommentPost a Comment |
tagged in , ,
Friday
22Jan2010

Rear Window

DateFriday, January 22, 2010 at 12:00PM

"We've become a race of Peeping Toms. What people ought to do is get outside their own house and look in for a change."

Release Year: 1954

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Review: Trapped in a room, the world abuzz around, Jeff Jefferies (Jimmy Stewart) reveals our inner voyeur in one of Hitchcock's masterpieces of suspense.  I have a soft spot for one room movies, and Hitchcock is a master at decompressing a small space into a dynamic, un-restricting world.  The tension is keyed up high from the beginning.  It is a hot day and Stewart is trapped in his room overlooking a court yard which is a microcosm of New York City.  It is akin to a plastic ant farm.  Everyone going about their own business oblivious to one another, but wholly watchable by Stewart and the viewer.  This rich world is important in the story working and it was essential for Hitchcock to be able to pull off such an environment effectively.  There needed to be enough life outside the window for us to be interested in looking out it for the entire length of the film.  He succeeds on every level.

The idea of the voyeur is very pronounced in many films, but none so much as in 'Rear Window'.  The shooting technique Hitchcock employs exaggerates the relationship the viewer has in relation with Stewart.  He looks through the binoculars, we see what he sees, and then we see his reaction.  We too are the voyeurs.  The reasons we as movie goers may choose to watch films may be very much in line with why Stewart chooses to involve himself with the life outside his windows.  The crime, while keeping the story suspenseful isn't the main theme.  It is much more about relationships and love.  Stewart obsesses over his neighbors in a way to escaping his own relationship troubles with his girlfriend.  He sees an entire gamut of kinds of people through his window, from happy old couples, young couples and lonely singles.  What he sees through the lenses of his binoculars reveal more what is within himself more than anything.  It is only through the adventure does Stewart fall in love with his girlfriend.  By observing he has grown.

'Rear Window' is a completely gratifying film in every way.  With such a simple premise so much is explored. The one nit I would pick would be that near the middle portion I felt the suspense ball was dropped every so slightly, however it is a minor note in a near flawless film. The acting by everyone involved is incredible.  Jimmy Stewart is the definition of a relatable guy.  His tone is offset perfectly by Grace Kelly, who brings the epitome of the perfect woman to the screen.  Stewart often remarks that Kelly is "too perfect".  I couldn't help but think that about the film.  Everything falls into place so perfectly.   And yet, rather then be off put by this, it works on every level.  This is a testament to the brilliance of Hitchcok. He is that good.
Rating: 4.5/5

AuthorAlex Stajos | CommentPost a Comment |
tagged in , ,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 ... 30 Next 10 Entries »