- Alphabetical
- Most Reviews
- Most Views
- Top Rated
- Least Recent
- Most Recent
Daniel Day-Lewis has easily established himself as one of the greatest actors of our time. But does that mean that he can make any movie he stars in enjoyable? No. An example of this was his previous movie, Nine, which was a flop. The new film Lincoln has already generated much more attention due its subject being one of our country's greatest presidents. But I must say the film itself is a bit of a bore. The entire film focuses on Abraham Lincoln's struggle to pass an amendment that would ban slavery. The Civil War has been going on for years and the president is constantly being told that he can either end the war or end slavery, but he can't do both. So throughout the film we watch Lincoln and his staff try to figure out a way to pass the amendment. This involves persuading those whom they know will oppose it to somehow switch sides. And the movie doesn't hide the fact that the president resorted to bribery in some cases. What's interesting though is that in today's political climate it would be Republicans who would oppose such a thing as abolishing slavery. But in the 1860's, it was clearly the Democrats who did not want to free the slaves. The one other side story thrown into the film is that Lincoln had a son who clearly wanted to serve as a soldier in the war. But both the president and his wife try to keep him from doing so. Aside from that, the whole movie is about passing the amendment. Of course, the end of slavery was a landmark moment in U.S. history. But to watch a 2 1/2 hour film entirely about the negotiations of it can be quite a drag, no matter how good the actors may be. I was reminded of The King's Speech, another movie with great acting but I pray that I will never have to sit through ever again. Day-Lewis is not as showy here as he has been in other roles; if anything, he down-plays Lincoln as a very calm and collected man who's not easily rattled by others. But time after time over the course of the film, he goes into some very long stories just to make a point or impart a bit of wisdom on those who are listening. Director Steven Spielberg (who just hasn't been making the same kind of quality films over the last 5 years) repeatedly pulls the old trick of slowly zooming the camera closer to Lincoln so that we feel like what he's saying is something monumental. But there's a moment in the film when he begins another long story and one of his fellow Republicans is so tired of them that he walks out of the room. By that point, I felt the exact same way.
Well I'm back in the good old USA - so what could be more American than to take in the Clint Eastwood directed bio-film about J. Edgar Hoover . Unsurprisingly the film is entitled J. Edgar . Eastwood's skills in directing a film are, as usual, evident. But despite the fine script by Dustin Lance Black , and a superb performance by Leonardo DiCaprio , I was less than thrilled with the film. I think that the film is physically dark, depressing, and dull. The chiaroscuro effects are stylish but when you add in the somberness of the subject, you might come away saying that the film lacks light as well as lightness. Granted - Hoover is no easy subject. As the long time Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hoover dominated the American political scene from the mid 1920's until his death in 1972 while still on the job. He was feared, and detested but he was good at what he did. This is not to say that he was honest, or played fair, or kept to a strict and righteous code of ethics that people could call equitable. In fact, Hoover was tyrannical, and a bit of monster. He molded the F.B.I. into a spiffy and polished unit at the cost of individuality. A man with a mustache is summarily fired because of his facial hair, and homosexuals were not found in the institutional corridors. J. Edgar himself was a power-seeking man who was also an enigma. He dealt in secrets - those that he could uncover about criminals, radicals, and communists which could lead to their prosecution and incarceration. deportation, or their outright demise. He dealt in secrets that he could use to mold the country into what he thought it should be. We watch as Hoover basically blackmailed his boss United States Attorney General Robert Kennedy by threatening to expose the President JFK's affair with an East German woman. Before that he had dirt on Eleanor Roosevelt. Hoover also tried to blackmail Martin Luther King into turning down the Nobel Peace Prize. He got the radical Emma Goldman deported even though she was married to a US citizen. He took credit for arrests of criminals that he never took part in. He abused his agents by making sure that every one of the FBI agents were kept away from the national spotlight even if their careers merited it. Finally there was Hoover's biggest secrets that were at the center of his personal life. Eastwood meets these head on then seems to back away. Hoover basically hired Clyde Tolson based on his looks - and the two were inseparable for most of their adult lives. We never see anything more than some hand holding and Eastwood and Black basically leave it to the viewers to read between the visual lines, or to make assumptions that are strongly hinted at but never confirmed beyond Hoover naming Tolson as his Number Two man at the top of the FBI food chain and Hoover's entire estate was left to Tolson. So whatever their personal reality was, Eastwood and company did not choose to add it , in further or greater depth, into the film. Hoover was petty, mean spirited, ambitious, power-hungry, a bit of a Momma's boy, and his tactics often went outside of the law making him someone who would break the law to arrest law breakers. Eastwood and Black have delivered J. Edgar with a familiar format of an older man dictating his memoirs to a series of writers with the ensuing flash blacks. We begin in 1919 with the bombing of the home of the Attorney General of the time, and end with Hoover's death alone on the floor of his art museum like bedroom. Before the news is even released to the news media, we see paranoid President Richard Nixon marshalling his henchman and saying - "Seal off his office, seal off his home. Find those files. I want those fucking confidential files." The format has us going back and forth from the older Hoover, to the younger and driven Hoover with Leonardo DiCaprio nailing both roles. Kudos must be given to the makeup artists who did an absolutely astonishing job with DiCaprio's Hoover. But somehow they did a lousy job with Armie Hammer as an older Clyde Tolson. Naomi Watts is along for the full ride as J. Edgar's personal secretary, Helen Gandy . She doesn't have much of role - I mean how to do you portray 'loyalty' as an actress? Judi Dench portrays J. Edgar's mother and she was as domineering as his Mom as he was as the FBI Director. She wasn't a monster though she appears to be the most major motivating factor in Hoover becoming the monster that he was. My overall impression was that the film was dull - you knew the players Nixon, RFK, MLK and you knew their outcomes. Eastwood did peel back the curtains to reveal visually the Hoover that we had only read about - but the film was inert. It lacked actions, highlights, and even DiCaprio couldn't make Hoover, the man, appealing. But then again, they weren't trying to make him appealing. What DiCaprio, Eastwood, and Black did achieve was to show us that the institution called J. Edgar Hoover did in fact have humanity - however flawed it was - he was still a person. But he was a person who passed from our lives nearly 40 years ago. In one sense he is still relevant, as a historical figure who made a huge impact. But from the other side of that same perspective - today's seniors 65+ years of age and older, will have an interest in this film because they lived through a part of Hoover's life with great awareness of him, if not exact knowledge. Younger folks may come in with an opinion that says: So what or who cares? Others will see the film because it was directed by Clint Eastwood whose career in films is even longer than Hoover's was in the FBI. Eastwood's name on the marquee or the film poster will guarantee to draw in plenty of paying customers. But because of the distance in years to Hoover's heyday if we can call it that, to the end of 2011 is a substantial amount of time. Clint, how about Mickey Mantle next ? Amazon.com has a list of the 10 Best Biography Movies - Shindler's List, Lawrence of Arabia, Gandhi, Amadeus, Raging Bull, Patton, Bonnie & Clyde, Goodfellas, Capote, and Malcolm X and this film isn't going to crack into that list replacing any of those films . While many critics are applauding this film with very good to excellent reviews - I'm not going there. This one wasn't even as good as Eastwood's Invictus , and in my view, J. Edgar will go down as a decent technical achievement but as a film that will leave audiences unmoved.
Moneyball tells the true story of Billy Beane, the general manager of the Oakland Athletics. He’s a former major league player himself, but never lived up to the potential that he was believed to have. His playing career failed, yet he eventually became a manager. He achieved much more fame as manager due to his very different style of managing. The film starts off by informing the viewer of how certain baseball teams, such as the New York Yankees, are given way more money than other teams. When Billy Beane took over as manager of the Athletics, they had one of the lowest budgets of all baseball teams. The Yankees were able to buy their best players away from them with ease. So Beane began to use a new ideology of recruiting players that he could afford. Instead of focusing on their batting average or home runs, he would put value on them that other recruiters overlooked; he would look at how often the players got on base and how many runs they scored, even if this was achieved simply through getting walks. There’s nothing flashy about getting walked in baseball, it just shows you have a good eye to not swing at bad pitches – but you’re still getting on base. Brad Pitt plays Beane, and Jonah Hill plays his assistant, Peter Brand. Beane hires Peter after seeing him at work with another team. He’s impressed by his knowledge as a player analyst. It’s from Peter that he learns this new way of looking at players and finding value in them even if they’re not considered financially valuable at the time. Peter was an economics major at Yale and is able to provide insight that others in the business don’t have. The two of them seem to take an accounting type of approach to recruiting that differs greatly from what everyone else is doing. The current recruiters are all very turned off by the manager’s new style of finding players and that he puts such importance on new hire Peter Brand. But he’s simply trying to change the game and how things are done. This is the essence of the entire film. The relationship between Beane and Brand is what makes it work. The two of them seem to have a great chemistry together considering that they have very different personas. And Jonah Hill proves that he’s capable of taking on dramatic work as opposed to the comedies that he’s most recognized for. But the movie tries to be much bigger than it really is. It acts as if it’s trying to show when the game of baseball was changed forever when it really wasn’t. It just shows one manager attempting a different method of putting a team together – and if you’ve followed Billy Beane’s work with the team in real life you’d know that this hasn’t led to any real success. It’s still a well-made film though; it just aims higher than it really needs to.
According to most dictionaries: If you have been convicted, then you've been tried in a court of law, and deemed guilty of a crime; hence you have been convicted and are a person with a criminal conviction on their record. From another perspective people might say; If you believe in something, then show us the courage of your convictions. In other words act upon what you believe. And so it came to pass. In the 2010 film Conviction , which stars Hilary Swank and Sam Rockwell , both of these perspectives come into play. Swank portrays the real life Bette Ann Waters . Rockwell portrays her brother Kenny Waters . Each are the product of a single broken family. Their mother produced a number of children - what was it - nine children with seven fathers? So the children grew up without much in the way of supervision. Bette Ann and Kenny were extremely close and together they broke into houses and committed small acts of vandalism as children. Ultimately they were separated and placed into different foster homes. But they remained close. Bette Ann grew up and was a high school dropout and a single mother of two children herself. Kenny's path was a bit rougher, and he acquired a record of small crimes and was known to be violent person. A woman is murdered and Kenny is brought in as a possible suspect by Police Officer Nancy Taylor ( Melissa Leo had the role). But he is soon released. Two years later he is again arrested on this same charge. This time the case goes to trial, and Kenny Waters is convicted of the murder. His sentence? Life in prison without parole. As Kenny Waters is led away in handcuffs, Bette Ann tells him - "we'll appeal! We'll get you out." The appeals fail. Bette Ann is a high school drop-out who supports herself and her two sons by working as a bartender/waitress. But she decides to make it her mission to have Kenny released from prison. She had the personal conviction of his innocence. It's back to school for a High School Equivalency Diploma, Then college, then law school. Eventually she passes the bar. But at what cost - her boyfriend lover leaves as Bette Ann is so determined, so driven, to have Kenny's conviction set aside, that their relationship flounders. Bette Ann barely has time for her own sons, and tells a law school buddy that she doesn't even have time for a friend. The years roll by. The trial evidence goes missing. Still Bette Ann doesn't give up. There's your set up. Remember this is a true story, so all of the above are not spoilers, they're facts. About the film itself - they've had to shoe horn roughly more than 18 years into 107 minutes. Of those 107 minutes, maybe 20 were to devoted to when Kenny and Bette Ann were children. Okay, using flashbacks is okay to visually establish how the relationship between this brother and sister was forged and fused into an unbreakable bond. But the repetition was done too many times, and interrupted the flow quite often. The script had some many shortcuts - the trial was too brief, the failed appeals were never shown - even Bette Ann's difficult journey to pass the bar was given short shrift. As was Kenny's life as a convicted murdered in jail. Swank is a great actress. There's no one better than her in showing drive, perserverence, and determination. But the film lacked suspense. It never was will Kenny get out it was always when. So this undercut Swank's exemplary performance. Rockwell brought a degree of hidden menace to his portrayal of Kenny Waters. Even though we know going in that he would get out, we still had moments when we said, Is Bette Ann wrong? Maybe Kenny did kill that woman. Then there was the testimony by the prosecutions key witnesses who were two women that Kenny had been involved with. We saw their testimony but we didn't a strong defense attempting to break them down during cross. Do public defenders really care? Do they try? While you won't find fault with the actors, I believe this story might have done much better as a multi-part mini-series on TV. It is my conviction that this film will grab your hearts and leave you with a sense of being alongside a couple of people who were able to overcome some severe obstacles. But I don't think you are going to feel as energized or elated as you might have expected. We will lay this on the steps before the director and screenwriter who hamstrung themselves with this scattered and uneven format, and overly ambitiously structured film.
This movie is about the story of the most infamous addictive 500 millions + members website: Facebook. Based upon the book The Accidental Billionnaire and brilliantly adapted by screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, The Social Network is more than just worth a look. The central character, Mark Zuckerberg co-founder of Facebook is strongly impersonnated by the young rising star Jesse Eisenberg ( The Squid and The Whale , Zombieland , Adventureland ). Sorkin's script evolves simultaneously around the two poursuits against Zuckerberg and on the beginnings of the 25 billions dollars enterprise to be. Tighly constructed and perfectly written The Socail Network hits in the middle of the target. It doesn't have a substory where it slows tha pace of the movie. Everything is important in the plot and many elements are crossed-referenced within the film. David Fincher handles the dark interiors of Harvard with soft warn colors contrasting with the clear cold lights of the glassed rooms of the offices of the lawyers and even in the offices of Facebook themselves. The character himself, Mark Zuckerberg, is intriguing and many subtilities of his persona are lighted. However, Zuckerberg isn't a very known face to me and unlike a public person like Bill Gates for example, I can't really compare the personification with the real man. On the popularity of The Socail Network , I think it stands for most part because of the popularity of Facebook, the website. Let's face it, who's not on it?Even bth my parents have their own accounts at 54 and 53. Moreover, I think the success of The Social Network relies on the clarity and the concise script it stands on. You don't have anything useless. Also the fact that this is a true story based on real events and real poursuits and mostly because this is the story of a successful man living the American Dream in the 21st Century with the methods of the 21st Century. David Fincher now stands as a major name in filmmaking and his attempt to make his own Citizen Kane proves he is good because it felt personnal and not like an imitation of something else. This is a work of his own. A must see!
This costume drama/biopic about the poet Jim Keats is well executed and has great performances from the leads and a great directing. The naturally lit interiors and exteriors give a crude but beautiful images to this somptuous film. However, I may just get bored by costume dramas because I find them laborious and somewhat "impersonal". They mostly reflect what the paintings of the time looked like. Their execution is wonderful and it takes a lot of mastery to handle them at this level. But, their subject and matters are too classical for my tastes. As in paintings, I prefer contemporary Art and subject. My favorite painters are Dali, de Chirico, Magritte, Munch, the expressionists, Warhol, etc. My two favorite costume dramas are Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon and Eric Rohmer's Marquise of O . Birght Statr is a good film well made and exquisite to loof at but it won't take the third place of my top costume dramas which is held by Marie-Antoinette .
RATING 7.5/10 BOTTOM LINE: “Fair Game” is a smart, insightful thriller that takes a while to get going but is carried by strong performances by Watts and Penn. THE GOOD: A smart, political thriller is hard to come by these days but “Fair Game” definitely fits the bill. The film is based on the true story of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent who was outed by the White House when her husband Ambassador Joe Wilson does an opinion piece for The New York Times in which he contradicts the assertions of the Bush administration of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. Naomi Watts plays Valerie Plame strong and assertive, yet vulnerable as her life disintegrates around her after her identity and work become public. Sean Penn is likewise excellent as Joe Wilson who is incensed by what has happened to Valerie and will stop at nothing to reveal the truth when he knows that the White House is lying. A lot of the story of this film will no doubt upset supporters for the war, and likewise embolden its detractors, as short of making a statement of what was happening at the time, the film is essentially about the White House clutching at any straws they could find to hang their case on invading Iraq (which is line that is not particularly new but still engaging nonetheless). When the wheels come off for the characters, the film definitely kicks in to gear as the pressure mounts on them from certain officers from within the White House who want to keep them silent. “Fair Game” is solid, smart thriller that engages in its rhetoric and story. THE BAD: The film does take a while to get going. The first third of the film is devoted to the setup of Plame and her daily duties. As fascinating as they are, the story itself gets bogged down as not much of it goes anywhere; we are essentially just watching all the background information required to set up Plame’s character and the situations she finds herself in. It may be a bit unfair to put this in the ‘bad’ column as all of this is required, but from a story point of view, the film creaks along a little too slowly during these scenes. This is no more prevalent than in the scene where Joe shows Valerie the news article in which she is outed and the film kicks in to high gear, almost too abruptly.
Kristin Stewart stars as Joan Jett and Dakota Fanning stars as Cherie Currie in the story of the short lived hit teenage all girl band of the 70's called The Runaways. The band came out of nowhere at a time when rock music was ruled by men. Their rise to fame was unexpected and the film tells the story of the ups and downs that come along with that sudden popularity and living the rock star lifestyle. Loved it!!! Kristin Steward and Dakota Fanning are a dynamic duo in this movie if I ever saw one. They are both so captivating in their performances. Fanning is so amazing I can't even put it into words. Wasn't it just yesterday that she was a little girl on "I am Sam"? Now she is all grown up and doing her first on screen kisses-one of them with a girl! She has this amazing ability to really take on a character and make you believe it. Fanning was gone and in her place I saw Cherie Currie-the rock star-and nothing else. Kim Fowley (Michael Shannon) was obnoxious and ridiculous beyond belief. Shannon did an excellent job playing this neurotic over the top character. I find it pretty amazing that this band was so young. Currie was only 15 when the band got put together. It seems like a more common trend now that superstars are barely teenagers but that wasn't the case so much back in the 70's. Another story about the pitfalls of super stardom but it was gritty, interesting and so well done that nothing about it felt like just another story. 4/5 STARS
This film is based on actual events. It was written by Bima Stagg, and directed by Bronwen Hughes. Johannesburg, 1976. Captain of the Police Force Andre Stander is an exceptional officer, young and brilliant with a prosperous career ahead of him. On a riot duty, he kills an unarmed man. After that, he suffers a nervous breakdown, and now realizing how incapable, corrupt and racist the system is, he decides to go against it by becoming a bank robber. He manages to rob 26 banks before he is caught. In prison, however, he befriends two convicts – Lee McCall and Allan Heyl. Eventually, they escape and form the “Stander Gang” robbing 20 more banks in the course of the next six months. The film was a joint UK/South African/Canadian production. It was shot on location and it has some really great scenery. I can say nothing but praise for it. It’s really a shame it went by so unnoticed. In the role of Stander is the awesome Thomas Jane who delivers a great performance. Dexter Fletcher is Lee McCall and David O’Hara is Allan Heyl. O’Hara did a great job, too. It’s even more interesting since it’s based on true events. During their 6 months run, the “Stander Gang” were the major news in Johannesburg. Hated by the police because they made them look stupid and incompetent, and admired by many, even bank owners, who considered an honor to be robbed by Stander. To them, robbing banks wasn't about money, it was a sort of revenge, a "Fuck you!" to the system. They were living the dream - fast cars, money and thrills, the best time of their lives. The film documents the rise and fall of the gang very well, although some of the real events were slightly changed for the film. The soundtrack is also awesome, especially the theme at the end, when Stander flees the country. It’s really a shame it never got released on CD. It would’ve been a blast. All in all, “Stander” is a great crime drama in every aspect and I can recommend it all of you. Rating: 8/10
Creation is in many ways a strong movie, but the most remarkable fact about it is that the U.S. was one of the last countries to secure a distribution deal. Was this because there was no market for the film? Or no bankable stars attached? Well, no - when you have the likes of Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly in the lead roles, lack of stardom will never be the issue. Even director Jon Amiel has had international success with Copycat and Entrapment . The sole reason why American distributors were so reluctant to fall in behind Creation was the fact that it deals with Darwin's theories of evolution. That's right - even in 2010 Darwin's position is considered controversial in certain quarters, and the Bible-thumpers seemingly still want to wipe him from the slate of history. George Bush has a lot to answer for. Creation doesn't shy away from the difficult questions raised by the Evolution vs. Religion controversy, and in many ways it faces them head-on. While Bettany plays a young Charles Darwin, Jeremy Northam appears as his friend the Reverend John Brodie-Innes. The pair of them repeatedly bicker and spar over their differences, and there's so much time given to the various arguments that you'd be forgiven for thinking that Darwin's theories were still unproven. The narrative comes at Darwin's achievements from an unusual angle, winding around them via his mental and physical anguish following his daughter's death, and Bettany proves once again that he's an incredibly talented and underused actor. As the screenplay winds in and out of reality and fantasy, high science and low melodrama, it's Bettany that holds it all together. I'll go out on a limb and predict an Oscar nomination for him within the next five years - all he needs is the right movie. Unfortunately Creation isn't it. While it's competently put together and unusually revealing in its human angle on one of history's giants, it too often feels like a sentimental made-for-TV melodrama, and the final payoff is so misty-eyed that you could almost make a Hallmark card out of it. Connelly's accent is a little uneven too, and the end result is less impressive than Darwin's achievements deserve. Still, Bettany shines as always, and a wily orangutan almost upstages everybody in its few touching scenes. Maybe the great ape will be joining Bettany on that podium sometime soon. 3/5
Rating: 4.5/5 I loved this film! I wasn’t sure what to expect going in, I only knew it was a true story about a soccer coach and is 44 days with Leeds United. When it comes to Italian soccer, I know names and a bit of history, but I know pretty much nothing like that when it comes to English soccer, so this story was new to me. I am sure I’ve heard Brian Clough’s name before this film, but I had no idea about what he did. This is kind of a bio-pic about him, going back and forth between his time with Leeds and his time with Derby. At the core is the partnership and relationship between Clough (played by the excellent Michael Sheen) and Peter Taylor (Timothy Spall, amazing in this role). The story here starts off with Clough going to the Leeds club, and we see their former coach Don Revie (A fantastic Colm Meaney) has left the team for the national team. But just how did Clough get the gig of coaching the top team? We see his rise at Derby with Taylor, as ego’s grow with the teams massive success. Clough does not get along with the Leeds team, trying to do things his way is not what the players want. His time there it seemed his ego had gotten the better of him and a falling out with Taylor is obvious since he isn’t there at Leeds with him. It is really fascinating to see this all unfold, it was almost like a history lesson with English football. Clough the film character is likable, I really enjoyed Michael Sheen’s performance. There was a lot of passion and emotion behind it. The same can be said for Timothy Spall, he was fantastic as Taylor (even if the physical resemblance wasn’t there). Maybe it is just me, but I do think these two men are fantastic actors, and the chemistry between them was electric. Because their partnership and relationship are so important to the story, if the two actors didn’t have the right chemistry between them wouldn’t have worked. Luckily for the film makers, they struck gold here. Colm Meaney always seems to show up in small roles, and even in Star Trek I think he proved he can do fantastic work. He was excellent, I know nothing about Revie but I felt this performance was perfect. At least it fit with the film, and the showdown he has towards the end of the film with Sheen was just full of such tension. Such a great and solid cast, I was a bit smiley when I saw Stephen Graham show up as Billy Bremner the Leeds Captain. Another fantastic actor, certainly deserves more credit. And keep an eye out for another amazing talent, Jim Broadbent. If I had to fault this film it would be the pacing, it does fail the film a few times, but as engaging as it is I didn’t notice it too much and it certainly didn’t ruin the experience for me. I do enjoy films that are based on true events and real people, when done right they can be engaging and thought provoking. This was well made and entertaining, I think this is the kind of film even if you aren’t a soccer fan you’ll enjoy it. Certainly a film I can easily recommend, if anything just check out how fantastic Michael Sheen is. First published at SuperMarcey.com
If it's nae Scottish it's crap Genre: Drama Thriller (UK) Starring: Forest Whitaker ( Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai ; Platoon), James McAvoy ( Strings ; The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe) Directed By: Kevin Macdonald (One Day in September) Overview: A newly graduated doctor decides to ply his craft for the less fortunate in Uganda. Upon meeting Idi Amin, who in turn makes him his personal physician, he discovers all too late the truth of the man behind the uniform. Performance: The main character isn't actually Idi Amin, it's his Scottish physician, which surprised me, as did his tremendous acting. As for Forest, he stopped surprising me recently with his role in "The Shield: Season 5" . His Oscar's well deserved. Rating: 9 Cinematography: The 70s look was indeed a nice touch. The shooting style changed for the dynamic best for those thrilling moments, but I was genuinely astounded by a camera trick that was played on occasion. During Idi's opening speech he mentions how he loves Uganda and puts his fist to his heart. The camera pans down, following his fist to focus on that moment. Later, Amin is ranting in his office, and he stretches out his arms, the camera follows his hand for a brief moment. I'm not one to go on about the symbolic representation of little moments like this... actually yes I am... but it was powerful, innovative and helped span the character's power, his reach and his love of his country. Something simple like that... Hell, the whole film is full of artistic blasts of awesome. Rating: 10 Script: Scottish? Ha! Ha! Why didn't you say so? Great soldiers. Very brave. And good people. Completely. Let me tell you, if I could be anything instead of a Ugandan, I would be a Scot...except for the red hair, which I'm sure is attractive to your women, but which we Africans, we find is quite disgusting. With enough smatterings of comedy to make this thriller human, we consistently see a very different side of Idi Amin than we already knew, you know, the reign of terror bit. This is tremendously well written as a personal approach to the life of an infamous dictator. Rating: 8 Plot: Perfectly paced, we follow a Scot as he becomes part of the influential inner circle of a madman, in short. I found it to be a very interesting approach, seeing the crimes and malignance under that facade of jolly innocence. It makes sense. Why would you learn about what's happening in the provinces when you're at headquarters living it up? Have no fear though, we do eventually see the full force of Amin's power, and rather than watching his life unfold, we follow the observer we knew nothing about, which makes it a fresh tale, no matter how much you know on the subject. Rating: 9 Mood: Once upon a time white people played black people. Figuring early on that that was wrong (if not confusing), they stopped doing that, but they didn't stop doing blackface for a loooong time after , but in context of minstrelry, you know the African-American Soutern traveling shows. Ted Danson got ragged on for pulling blackface at Whoopie Goldberg's roast, even though she thought it was hilarious. I guess it's a great sign of the times when a black man can pull blackface and not get yelled at. Yeah, Idi was an especially dark man, Forest not so much. Subtle make up job, but I noticed. I guess it could be worse ... Um, as for the overall mood, I found that the thriller aspect was forced a smidge too much on occasion, to the point that I wondered who put them up to it. Rating: 8 Aye, there's the rub. You know your protagonist is an idiot when... Overall Rating: 88% (A Crowning Achievement) Aftertaste: Looks like this year Oscar knew what he was talking about. Perhaps last year's choices were less plentiful in the realm of excellence, but this year everything I've seen so far is bang on... I guess I should get around to The Departed...
Taking a witty sidelong glance at the final years of author Leo Tolstoy's life, The Last Station is far lighter in tone than you might expect. Sure, there's still plenty of Russian hand-wringing as the script skirts over issues of religion and politics, but The Last Station is entertainment first and foremost. Tolstoy himself may have been a literary heavyweight (literally so, in the case of War And Peace 's mighty tomes), but this is a movie that prefers budding romance and sly humor to deeper considerations. That's not to denigrate it, however - because The Last Station manages to craft an engaging little story from its wit and romance. It's a remarkable achievement, as it somehow makes Tolstoy and slapstick humor go hand in hand. Christopher Plummer stars as Tolstoy (clearly he's reached the age where he can only play crazy old men with beards - check out his recent performance in The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus ), but it's Helen Mirren who steals the show. She manages to be both earnestly passionate and wildly ridiculous as Sophia Tolstaya, Tolstoy's wife, and it's little wonder that she won so many accolades for the performance. It's incredible that she still manages to be so refreshing and surprising every time we see her on the screen. For the purposes of the story we follow Tolstoy's new secretary Valentin Bulgakov ( James McAvoy ) as he struggles to get to grips with his role. Bulgakov has been sent to spy on Sophia by Vladimir Chertkov ( Paul Giamatti ), the head of Tolstoy's 'Tolstoian' disciples, but he quickly becomes engaged in their explosive and unpredictable family dynamic. As Tolstoy nears death, however, loyalties are questioned, and the future of his estate is up for grabs. Both Mirren and Plummer are scattily charming in their roles, and it's good to see McAvoy back in the period costumes that seem to suit him so well. His nervous sneezing fits are one of the film's funniest running gags, and yet he manages to imbue Bulgakov with a serious naivety that suggests hidden depths - it's easily his most fully-rounded performance in several years. Scholars and biographers will undoubtedly feel let down by The Last Station 's rather frothy lightness of touch, but for the average viewer the sneezing fits and histrionics are far more entertaining than their subject might suggest. Clearly Leo Tolstoy enjoyed both war and peace on the home front, too. 4/5
Most unreal are the girls with little dinkies. Genre: Fantasy Documentary Starring: Henry Darger's Novel, narrated by Dakota Fanning (Charlotte's Web; Man On Fire ) Directed By: Jessica Yu Overview: Henry Darger, an eccentric recluse of a janitor, had his artistic work discovered while he lay on his deathbed. This is the story of his life and of his 15,000 page novel. Performance: One of the narrators was very manly and guttural, representative of Darger himself, while another childish voice (Dakota Fanning) read elaborate sentences, which made for an eerie undertone that improved the telling of the story immensely. Very well done. Rating: 8 Cinematography: The story unfolding before us would not have been anywhere near as exciting had it not been for the fact that the documentarist decided to animate Darger's work as it was read and retold. The way it was laid out in a three-dimensional style made for a much more dynamic film. Nice touch, really. Rating: 8 Script: The story itself was well told, and frankly, yes there were some slow parts, but the interview editing where they took different people who said the same thing about the man's nature, though possibly contrived, was well done. Rating: 7 Plot:T he plot is better than simply the unfolding of a man's life, it's the recounting of the grand novel he wrote and the reason he wrote it. The animated story reflects his own life and this amazing 15,000 page book entitled In The Realms of the Unreal make for a really interesting plot. Rating: 7 Mood: The mood is also great. Haunting narration and those moving images with the backdrop of the 1960s narration of Chicago Public Service Announcements. They really do a good job with this. Rating: 7 Professorial soldiers mutilating little girls? What child WOULDN'T love it!? Overall Rating: 74% (Nice Mindtrip) Aftertaste: The story is mostly the actual unfolding of the man's novel. I was glad they decided to focus on this, otherwise it could have been pretty bland. That's half the point though. A tale about a lonely, boring recluse, and only near his death do they discover the crazy stuff he's been doing for the last 20 years. This is a very different documentary, and I really enjoyed it.
No, guys the title is higher... Genre: Music Documentary Starring: The Ramones! (Johnny, Dee Dee, Tommy, Joey, Markey, Ritchie) Directed By: Jim Fields, Michael Gramaglia Overview: The tale of The Ramones, punk rock band extraordinaire. Performance: The interviews are great. They're funny and the people in the band really seem to put their best in answering the questions and telling the story in an entertaining fashion. Rating: 7 Cinematography: This is what happens with archival footage. It's old. The interviews are crisp, as usual, but the footage from their tours and especially CBGB's is pretty bad at times. It's blurry and muffled. I don't know if the producers gave up in trying to have some quality archival stuff, in the sake of keeping the gritty mood, but the blurry got distracting. Rating: 5 Script: The interviews and the stories are really entertaining, even if you aren't a fan. The fight about what the next song should be, and the retelling of the "your girlfriend's a pig" knife fight stories are definitely my favorites. Dee Dee's dialogue is pretty funny stuff. Rating: 7 Plot: There are no original twists in this documentary. Metallica: Some Kind of Monster is a story about the band making an album after tribulations, and discussions with their therapist. Dig! is a story of two rival bands and their juxtaposed careers. What I'm saying is this is a straight up Rock History, so you'd better like the Ramones if you're going to see this. Rating: 6 Mood: The mood was Rock with a splash of punk, and a touch of the era and it's too bad that we couldn't have seen more of their parties and the like, I guess there just wasn't any film of it. Good Rocumentary though, real entertaining. Rating: 7 No actually there weren't all related, their last names actually just all happened to be Ramone! Overall Rating: 64% (Relatively Uninspired) Aftertaste: The Ramones kick ass and if you like them, see this. If you're just going to pick something off the shelf just for the sake of learning a bit about an influential band and you aren't really into the Ramones, might I suggest one of the other rocumentaries I mentioned? Like I said, there really isn't anything here past history and some wild stories about the band, but I liked it.
» = New Post(s)