Good Night, and Good Luck: 8 (of 10)

 

I went back and forth about the rating for this one.  Taking its name from the trademark closing Edward R Murrow used on his news show, we are shown what appears to be a fairly factual account of how his willingness to stand and point out wrong helped to end the McCarthy era of fear.  Shot in a rich black and white and using a large amount of actual news footage from the hearings, we are given a story which is quite appropriate to the day.  The movie, however, falls short of really telling us what Edward is all about.  Like watching him on TV, we only see a facade and don't get a real look into his character.  The only characters we get to see outside work are part of a sidestory which seems random and pasted into the script.

 

That being said, the movie is still a great watch.  I was waffling between a 7 and an 8 for it and I guess the Oscar nomination probably swayed me.

Here's a quick guide to what various ratings mean to me when I rate a movie.  It's important to realize that I have a very steep curve; even a rating of 5 qualifies as a watchable film.

 

10 - I reserve this for very few movies.  I've been doing this rating thing for about five years now and I think there have been fewer than five movies qualifying as a 10.  A film which resoundingly excels at story, character development, and cinematography.

 

9 - A film with very few problems yet doesn't quite soar enough to garner a 10.  Perhaps I felt the movie was slightly long or didn't like a particular scene.  Nines are also few and far between.  Both nine and ten films leave you thinking about the story long after you have watched it.

 

8 - A very good film.  Does well at the three basics of film (story, character development and cinematography).  May have editing issues (too long) or isolated problems with certain characters.

 

7 - A very solid film.  Seven is the start of what I consider to be a pretty good film.  May have done well in two of the three basics of film.  An example would be a very good action film which had an intriguing story, great cinematography and effects, but was typically light on character development.

 

6 - A good film.  Films which rate a six have flashes of brilliance, but fail to carry through completely.  Good "popcorn" films often rate a 6.  Character development is often neglected or left to just one core character.  The story may have holes in it representing lazy writing.

 

5 - A watchable film.  This is my minimal rating for what I would consider a recommended movie.  May neglect two of the three basics of film but show brilliance in the remaining feature.  Action/sci-fi films which are incredible in their CG effects but rely too heavily on them would likely get a five.

 

4 - A film which mainly fails.  The biggest culprit is usually lazy writing.  Dialogue is left to one liners and what is only necessary to advance the plot.  The story is completely predictable outside of perhaps the ubiquitous "twist ending".  If there is a twist, it is completely unforseeable and makes little sense in the story other than to mix things up.  Character development is minimal.

 

3 - I'm pretty disappointed I saw it.  We're getting down there now.  I tend to be picky with which films I watch so I tend to have few films I rate at 3 or below.  The film has some flaw which I cannot get past.  Doesn't engage me at all.

 

2 or less - I turn these off.  Why do we feel we need to finish a movie when it is clearly so poor?

Cinderella  Man: 9 (of 10)

 

I'm starting to gather my list of movies for the Top 10 of 2005.  I was finally able to see Cinderella Man after it sat as a "long wait" for nearly ever on my Netflix queue.  I'm glad I did.  Based on the true story of James J Braddock, a boxer of the depression era, Cinderella man carries its own heavyweight talent.  It is directed by Ron Howard, score by Thomas Newman, and acted by Russel Crowe, Rene Zellwiger, and Paul Giamatti.  Giamatti's skill is especially needed to counter Crowe's own skill in disappearing into his character.  (As an aside, Paul Giamatti is perhaps one of the best of the current batch of actors out there.  Had he been blessed with the hollywood Adonis look, he would be as large a draw as anybody.)

 

The movie works because a) it's a true story; were this fiction, we wouldn't believe it, and b) although you "know" the ending, you don't feel like you do.  I was riveted and transfixed with excitement during the final match.  That takes skill to pull off.

 

To summarize, I cannot recommend this film enough.  You will not be disappointed.

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room: 8 (of 10)

 

We are seeing more Enron news these days as the trial goes on trying to convict Jeffrey Skilling and Ken Lay of misleading investors and employees.  If you want to actually understand what is going on, and be fascinated at the same time, I recommend this documentary.  It seems like it would be a dry subject, but it isn't.  It was mesmerizing.  My wife also enjoyed it and she doesn't have the same tolerance for such things as I do.  Not only does it allow you to read a current news article and understand what they are  talking about, it is an incredible look into human nature and the dark side of big business.

 

On another note, I will be trying to post more often in the next month or so.  I appreciate people still coming by to see my pictures, but the posts have been infrequent.  We'll see if we can renew that and I may even post a philosophical piece or two.  I've been mulling some stuff over and it's always nice to get it into words.

Born into Brothels: 8 (of 10)

  Winner of the Academy Award in 2005 for Best Documentary, this movie nearly has it all.  In it, we meet a woman interested in exploring life in the slum brothels of Calcutta, India.  She quickly finds out that cameras are not welcome in this area, but finds a way around this by giving cameras to the children of the prostitutes.  We then get to experience this life in a unique way; through the eyes of a child.  This has an unintended consequence for Zana; she begins to care deeply about the children and wants to rescue them from their environement.  The filmmakers now find themselves part of the story instead of merely documenting it.

 

  This film leaves you with stuff to ponder long after the credits roll, an excellent quality.  Also, for me, being about photography is a natural bonus.  I highly recommend this film to people interested in how much of the rest of the world lives.  But be prepared, while the poverty doesn't smother us like a millstone on our chest, you will never look at your own house quite the same way.  Some films change lives; this one has such possibilities.

L'Auberge Espagnol (The Spanish Aparntment): 8 (of 10)

  An incredibly fun film.  Think Friends, but without a laugh track, without incessant one liners, and the Friends all come from different countries.  Ok, don't think about Friends a t all.  This is way better.  Shot so well that you easily forget you are watching a movie.  The plot becomes a series of events which happen during our main character's one year stay as an exchange student in Spain (he's French).  The end contains one of the biggest laughs I've had in a while.

 

City of God: 8 (of 10)

  Also an incredible film, but comes with a warning of ultraviolence.  Think Boyz in the Hood except in Portuguese.  It follows a series of "stories" which occur and tie together in a slum called the City of God.  The most gripping part is the end where we learn it's a true story.

 

 

 My wife and I got to drop the kids at a neighbor's and go see King Kong in an old fashioned single screen theater (but with state of the art sound) nearby.  I loved it.  Peter Jackson, best known for his masterful direction of Lord of the Rings has proven it was not a fluke (although keeping up the direction over 3 films could hardly be thought a fluke).  Kong is what movies are supposed to be.  The CG is breathtaking and the action sequences leave you at the edge of your seat.  (I remember actually thinking, "holy cow, NOW how are they going to get out of this?")  But, and this is where most hollywood movies fail, Kong also provides story, characters and depth.

 

Yes, it is long.  Yes, it is likely too long.  However, I was willing to give up this extra baggage in exchange for making the characters seem more real.  Jack Black plays and excellent Carl Denham, and Naomi Watts plays a decent heroine.  But the main character is, of course, Kong.  The CG is as wonderfully detailed as with Gollum (with motion capture provided by the same actor Andy Serkis).  Here is no stop-motion clay model!

 

The best scene is not one of action, but one of touching emotion.  You'll know it when you see it, but if you need a hint, it involves ice.

 

By all means, catch this one in the theater when you can.  Likely to make the Top 10 movies of the year...

 

 

Lagaan: 10 (of 10)

 

I'm sorry it has been so incredibly long since I have posted.  I have tried to keep up with pictures and my Last 5 Movies seen list, but life has gotten in the way of blogging.

 

I could not, however, not write about this movie.  Who would have thought that a nearly four hour Indian film about cricket ranks among the best sports films I have ever seen.  I will give no details of the movie so as not to ruin anything, but if you can read subtitles and don't mind a few musical scenes (ala Bollywood), or a long film, I can almost guarantee you will enjoy this film.  Easily the best movie I have seen in a while.

Red Beard: 6 (of 10)

 

This is a film by Akira Kurasawa who is probably the best known Japanese director in the history of film.  He is likely to be listed among the best directors of all time among any nationality.  The movie is a long, slow look at Noboru, a newly trained doctor who was being groomed to be a physician to the Shogun, but somehow has wound up in a public clinic for the poor.  It is both a good look at what physicians go through in the beginning of their careers (how they deal with death or the helplessness felt by healers sometimes), and at the plight of the destitute.

 

The movie is 3 hours long, which is almost beyond my ability to watch these days.  I had to do it in chunks.  I'd say it's length keeps it from a higher rating.  The ending does pick up a bit as things come together in a few of the most touching scenes the movie holds.

 

If you liked a previous pick of mine The Twilight Samurai, you will probably like this.  They both run at the same pace and are exquisitely interested in character development over plot advancement.  If you are spoonfed on Hollywood action tripe, well, stay away.

Primer: 7 (of 10)

 

What can $7,000 get you?  Apparently, a fairly well written story about time travel.  This ultra-low budget film was written, directed, acted, produced, scored and probably catered by Shane Carruth.  I will give two warnings.  First, you need to have taken at least AP Physics to be able to at least understand the words being spoken during moments of techno-babble.  Second, the film was made for $7,000.  If someone comes between the camera and the person speaking, I don't think they had the budget to reshoot.  There are a lot of "rookie" mistakes, but they are overlooked because you are interested in the story.

 

We follow two garage inventors who stumble across a machine possibly capable of time travel.  From there we are wisked off into a simple, yet interesting, "what if" scenario.  I will say the ending was a bit on the confusing side, but I bet I could have worked it out with a repeat viewing.

 

For those who want to see something totally below the radar and aren't afraid of multisyllabic words, you just might want to check this one out.

Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-rabbit: 9 (of 10)

 

It is always a pleasure to watch a labor of love.  While this movie could likely have been made much more easily with CG, instead the creators took five years of painstaking stop animation and wound up giving us a film which was filled with great visuals as well as more than a few guffaws, chuckles, and outright laughs.

 

I was first introduced to Wallace and Gromit with "A Grand Day Out" about seven or eight years ago.  From there we quickly acquired the three shorts which were a big hit with our son.  When I saw the previews for a full-length feature, I knew it would be a long time before we saw something new so hoped for the best.  I was not disappointed.

 

Wallace, an inventor, and Gromit, his silent, but expressive, dog, have embarked upon a new business venture; they are charged with protecting everybody's record-setting vegetables from rabbits.  Before the 500-year-old competition can begin, the town is attacked by a dreaded were-rabbit.  Now our heroes must do battle to save the competition and win the praise of the Lady Tottington.

 

This movie is entirely family friendly.  There are a few jokes inserted for the adult (the most "racy" of them has a naked Wallace covering himself by wearing a cardboard box with the writing "may contain nuts"), but really they aren't needed as the rest of the gags are just as enjoyable.

 

If you have never experienced the quirky Wallace and Gromit, by all means go out and see it.  I guarantee you will leave the theater searching for either the short films,  a bit of Wensleydale, or perhaps even some Stinking Bishop.

How Green Was My Valley: 4 (of 10)

 

I think this is an good example of a movie which was excellent for its time, but has not worn well with age.  It won 5 oscars for Best Actor, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Director, and Best Picture.  However, if you watch this movie and then watch October Sky, both films set in small mining towns, you can see the vast changes (and in many ways advances) the film industry has undergone.

 

I was not a fan of this "unforgettable film".  Tragedy is not a be-all-end-all method for achieving substance.  While we are doused with a good dose of the tragedy which befalls the Morgan family, my wife and I kept referring to it as "How Boring Was My Valley".  This is perhaps one to watch so you have an appreciation of the history of film, but not one to watch for entertainment.

Dogtown and Z-Boys: 7 (of 10)

 

I know nothing about skateboarding.  OK, next to nothing.  I do know there is a dude named Tony Hawk.  But when RT gave a 90% rating to a documentary on the origins of the sport, I had to bite.  We already know I like documentaries, especially interesting ones.  Dogtown does a good job.  Made on what must have been a shoestring budget (narrator Sean Penn actually clears his throat at one point...what no retake?), the true value of the movie lies in the authenticity.  We get to learn how skateboarding (as we know it) came out of a small patch of Santa Monica with a group of kids from the wrong side of town.

 

At first I was distracted by the MTV style edits showing still picture after still picture in rapid succession, but they either grew tired of doing it or realized their movie would be about 20 minutes long because it slows down later.  Luckily they have a fair amount of actual movie footage from the '60s and '70s so you can get a real sense of the evolution of skating.

 

Why care?  I don't know.  I just like to be able to converse a little about everything.  The next time I have a patient who looks the skater dude type, I guess I can ask him if he thinks Tony Hawk or Tony Alva is the best skater of all time...

Sin City: 4 (of 10)

 

Imagine an artist who paints pictures in a very original manner.  His skill is undoubtable and is unlike most other artists out there.  Now imagine that he spends all his time painting scenes of dogs playing poker.  I ask you this: just because this artist has talent, does it make buying lots of pictures of dogs playing poker worthwhile?

 

Sin City amounts to dogs playing poker.  The way the movie was shot and altered was wonderful.  It feels like we are watching a comic book (ahem, graphic novel...we are adults after all) unfold before our eyes.  As a photographer and photoshop lover, I enjoyed this on a level probably not everybody would.  However, the bulk of the film amounts to little but glorified, non-sensical violence...dogs playing poker.

 

I will admit I only made it through the Mickey Rourke story, so it's possible there was redemption waiting for me at the end, but if Frank Miller's other writing credits (Elektra, RoboCop 2 and 3) are any indication, I doubt it.

 

I am not shy to violence (see my Top 10 movies list...Snatch is #4 and is quite violent), but when violence is there just for the sake of being there, I question why I am watching it.  We have become numb as Americans.  European films need much less violence to stir a reaction in their audience.  On the other hand, sex is the opposite, with the Europeans being non-chalant about much more than we will tolerate.  (Perhaps Janet's "wardrobe malfunction" would have had Europe thinking it malfunctioned by not coming all the way off...)  But I digress.

 

In the end I didn't find my redeeming about the movie other than the visuals.  And like I said eariler, even a talented artist can't really make dogs playing poker worth having on my living room wall...not when there are so many other paintings out there.

Crash: 9 (of 10)

 

This film has the early inside track on best film of the year.  I loved it.  It is a film all about black and white where nothing is black and white.  In the vein of 13 Conversations About One Thing (or the more mainstream Grand Canyon), we get to watch many separate stories which intertwine as the movie goes along.  The title refers to the figurative way people crash into each other in their daily lives.

 

The very best thing about this film is the quality of character development.  Nearly every character is formed from a complex array of good and bad.  Some seem to have ghastly gashes and scars across their souls, only to show redemptive qualities later.  Others seem the victim, but later reverse that roll.  And amazingly the whole thing doesn't come off as a writer trying too hard.

 

Personally, I love characters with complexity.  Crash delivers them in spades.

Cellular: 3 (of 10)

 

My first question is how William H Macy, Kim Bassinger, or Jason Statham wound up in this film?  Each is a capable actor and I particularly like Statham and Macy, but they all mail it in during this snoozer.  The only bright point was Chris Evans, who I was not familiar with, playing the roll of the teenager who winds up on the other side of that fated phone call.  OK, that and Rick Hoffman playing a really obnoxious lawyer.

 

Skip it people.  Phone booth was better if you want a thriller involving telecommunications...

 

 

The Constant Gardner: 8 (of 10)

 

Hey! It's a current movie review.  My wife's parents were in town and that allowed us to escape the knee-biters for a bit and catch a movie.  I am glad to report we didn't pick a stinker.  The Constant Gardner was a great thriller/mystery set in the heart of Africa.  Ralph Fiennes plays Justin Quayle, a British diplomat who is used to flying under the radar.  He marries Tessa (Rachel Weisz) who is much more interested in activism and seeking justice for the poorest people on the poorest continent.  After her death, Justin is forced to uncover Tessa's activist focus in order to answer his own questions about her.

 

The film is directed by Fernando Meirelles who directed the widely praised City of God (a film I haven't seen, but immediately added it to the list on Netflix).  Where this movie really shines is the locations Meirelles chooses for his scenes.  We are taken to real live shanty towns on the outskirts of an urban African city.  I was surprised that the governement allowed such filming and wondered how sets were controlled at all.  Perhaps I was just duped by good staging, but that just shows even more the realism the locations lend.  We see houses made of nothing but corregated steel, trenches of garbage and sewage, a cacophany of people selling things, kids running everywhere, and overall pure, abject poverty.  The look into these slums is worth the price of admission.  On top of that we are also treated to some great natural shots in other areas of Africa, including Sudan.

 

The story is compelling and holds you the whole way through.  It was difficult to keep characters separate at first, but slowly, as the story unfolds, you learn who is who and things fall into place.  This is not a thriller who's "thrill" is dependent on any final twist.  In fact, it's perhaps a little overstated to call this a thriller at all.  We certainly have moments of taut action, but we are not subjected to scares and such.  I guess it's best categorized as a mystery.  Justin doesn't know who his wife became as their marriage drifted.  He still loves her, but can't love the "real Tessa" until he understands what she was all about.  Only after does his love truly manifest.

 

The writing is well done and the bad guy (who I won't reveal) one of a relatively new genre.  We aren't dealing with terrorists here.  (Looking back you can see the stereotyped enemies based on our societies fears...the '80s were full of communist spies, the '90s had gangs and drug-dealers, post 9/11 we have extremist terrorists.)

 

The Constant Gardner is a thinking man's film.  You have to watch and be ready to invest a little concentration to get the most out of it, but you will reap a bountiful gain with that investment.

12 Angry Men was filmed in 1957.  It is so interesting to see the evolution of film in the time since.  I'm sure high pitched discussions have been had about whether film has advance, or just changed.  12 Angry Men would be a good study.

 

The premise of the film is worthy of any time period.  12 jurors are sequestered in a small room on a hot, humid day and given the task of determining the guilt or innocence in a capital murder case.  However, many, many features of this film would not survive in today's world.

 

1) 98% of the film takes place on one set.  It views more as a play than a movie.  This wasn't likely normal even back in the '50s, but I can't think of a modern-day example that even comes close to the limited number of sets.

 

2) No soundtrack.  We are so used to movies with sound to dictate our emotion we feel somewhat lost without it.  While some might say this amounts to "cheating" or taking the "easy way out", I would argue that an underlying soundtrack was a huge advance in film and a tool that can be used to both good and back effect.

 

3) Dialog.  The dialog in this movie also seemed to be written more for the stage.  Many conversations went from point A to B to C in a very linear fashion.  Modern movies tend to have more chaotic dialog which echoes reality much better.

 

I would recommed seeing the movie though for the very reason of seeing how it used to be done.  The film is still entertaining, although there are a few logical stretches (something certainly not limited to old movies).   It also has a bit of social commentary which is interesting.  Trying to ignore the obvious social message we are given, we can see underlying tones of what society was like by concentrating on things the director doesn't really want us to concentrate on (and thus doesn't think about altering to fit the message).

Miller's Crossing: 8 (of 10)

 

How could I have missed this film before?  My  Netflix list was getting a little short so I started to look back for some movies I had missed previously.  I thought I would revisit the Coen brother's and saw that I hadn't seen this movie.  The C-brothers doing a mob film?  Wow, I can't really picture that.  I remembered the preview of the man begging for his life in a forest carpeted with yellow leaves and thinking this film must be really heavy.  Well, it isn't quite as heavy as you think, and, yes, it's got Coen written all over it.

 

To start with, the dialog is fast and thick.  The actors talk quickly in order to get the multitude of words they have been given out in a decent amount of time.  Sometimes it's a bit hard to follow, especially when you are getting all the characters mixed up, but you get used to it and, anyway, the words aren't just empty or wasted.  Coen writing is thick with irony, comedy, come-backs, and intelligence.

 

You will recognize actors from future Coen films, especially John Tuturro.  They pop in and out of a cast of dozens.

 

Bottom line, if you like other Coen films (eg. Fargo, Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?, Hudsucker Proxy), you will not be disappointed.

Imax films usually are glorious sights of cinematography.  Neither of these disappoint in that regard, but I can't get too excited about either film.  The Living Sea is the worse of the two.  There is no overriding theme and the segments are a hodge-podge mix of various fishies.  I found it rather boring (although I've seen lots of marine documentaries) and fit for late-nite PBS rather than IMAX.  If you want a good marine documentary, watch The Blue Planet series.

 

Africa: Serengeti was somewhat better.  It followed the migration of the wildebeests with various stops along the way.  It was funny that it was narrated by James Earl Jones and I kept having Lion King songs run through my head.  I also had to say "Mufasa" a few times out loud.

 

Both have a very short 40 minute run time.  If you want to just sit back and watch some beautiful nature shots, they are fine, but in the end, I'd probably search elsewhere for a film to learn something.