Originally Reviewed – 4/8/2011

Way back when, in the year 1987, a Japanese game designer named Hironobu Sakaguchi, in a last ditch attempt to break into the video game industry, created a little RPG known as Final Fantasy. This simple tale of the Warriors of Light and their quest to regain the power of four mystical crystals spawned a series of sequels that would forever redefine gaming. Fast forward exactly ten years and Square, finally seeing mainstream success with the classic Final Fantasy VI (known as Final Fantasy 3 in the US), released their latest game, Final Fantasy VII on the brand new Sony Playstation. The first game in the series to feature 3D graphics, some minor adult language and a sweeping story of a world in environmental turmoil quickly rocketed to the top of gaming charts everywhere, a place it still holds today. The epic story of Cloud, Aries and the Shinra Corporation ushered a new era in gaming, much like the original did ten years earlier. Fast forward another eight years and, in an attempt to further the story for fans of the game while using the technology of the previous yet poorly received Spirits Within, Final Fantasy VII Advent Children was released. The result was a feature length computer animated film that took the characters everyone knew from the classic game and put them in a brand new adventure. The result?

Eeeehhh….

To be fair, I didn’t experience FF VII when it first came out on the original Playstation. While my friends were freaking out, 1997 was right at the tail end of the “Bit Wars” and I was a Nintendo fan through and through. Truth be told, my first foray into the game was last year, when I decided that I couldn’t call myself a Final Fantasy fan without playing through the game most critics hailed as the finest in the series. The game, in short, is brilliant and while the visuals may not hold up, the story, surprises and action certainly do. But this isn’t a review of the game; this is a review of the cinematic sequel and while the film is rife with nostalgia and high flying action, it all hinges on how much you loved the original experience. If you’ve never played the original, it’s a big, beautiful mess.

The movie picks up right where the game ends with Red XIII running towards a future Midgar, the place where much of the events of FF VII take place. It’s two years after the events of FF VII and while mankind has reverted to a more basic way of living, a new disease known as Geostigma is plaguing the citizens of the once technologically advanced city. Cloud, the hero of the original game, is summoned by the president of Shinra to help stop a group of three mysterious people who are trying to bring back Genova and could be the cause of the disease. If all that flew past you in a hailstorm of “whaaaatt?”, congrats! This is one film you do NOT need to see! This, in a nutshell, is the fatal flaw of Advent Children. Fans will love it, non fans will be completely baffled.

And if you know my reviews, you know I have a theory why. The first Final Fantasy film, The Spirits Within, was dazzlingly animated but panned by critics and audiences alike. While the film was visually stunning, it lacked an interesting story and more importantly, relatable characters. To solve this problem, the filmmakers decided to not only mine familiar material for their follow up, use the characters and setting of the most popular role playing game ever made. As a result, fanboys flipped the f out, despite the film really only centers on Cloud, Tifa and the Turks from FF VII. The rest of the cast drops in, pretty much randomly during one of the epic battles, to serve only as fan service. It warmed my heart as a fan, but made me cringe more than a few times as a critic.

As for all the other things that make a quality film, Advent Children just doesn’t work. The story is decent follow up to the game but the dialogue is laughable, the humor never works and the action is only grounded if you cared about the characters thirteen years ago. While the battles and fight sequences are, for the most part, visceral and fun, I knew this was only the case because those characters had taken root in me from my previous experience. In the end, Advent Children succeeds only on the nostalgia of the viewer and as much as I enjoyed seeing Cloud and the crew together for one more battle in the Lifestream against the evil Sephiroth, I can’t honestly recommend this movie unless you know what the hell a Sephiroth is in the first place.

NOTE: I saw the “Complete” version of this flick, which evidently added twenty minutes of originally cut footage. While, from what I hear, this Complete version helps contexualize the story for those who aren’t familiar with the game, the tale is still only decent.

Score – 50%

Originally Reviewed – 4/5/2010

Right before I moved from New Jersey to the Upper East Side of Manhattan, I heard my fair share of warnings and platitudes from friends and family. “Don’t take the subway after 10”, “HOW much are you paying for your apartment?” and “New York is a cold, heartless place” were some of the more common comments. The most interesting one, however, was a saying my younger brother had picked up somewhere and passed on to me. He said, “Live in NY for a bit but leave before it makes you too hard, live in LA for a bit but leave before it makes you too soft”. The opening twenty minutes of the latest film from writer/director Nicole Holofcener made me immediately think of that mantra. Brimming with a cast of unsympathetic characters, I first thought, “Great, another snarky, too cool for the room, Manhattanite comedy”. “Do we really need another flick about rich yet depressed New Yorkers?”, I thought to myself. Luckily, the answer is yes as the film rises above the cliquey pretense of its privileged Central Park West setting providing arc, depth and even redemption in its characters. The end result is a relatable, wryly outrageous and often very funny dark comedy about complex people dealing with a range of issues, all with a real emotional center.

Just be aware that it takes a bit of time before these characters become tolerable. The principals of the film is a couple, played by Catherine Keener and Oliver Platt, who make a very fine living purchasing antique furniture from the estate sales of the recently deceased and reselling the pieces at a crazy mark-up. When their next door neighbor starts knocking on Heaven’s Door, they salivate at the thought of buying up the place, giving them a chance to expand their own domicile. Charming! Add in the old lady’s granddaughters, one a sweet yet painfully bland radiologist, the other a cold, emotionally vapid skin specialist as well as the couple’s whining, angst ridden daughter and you have the makings of a pretty rough edged cast, especially given the frankness of their disconnection. The only redeemable character at the beginning is the grandmother herself, played brilliantly by Ann Morgan Guilbert. Everybody else is so wrapped up in their world of materialism, codependency and soullessness, you really feel as though these characters are doomed, New York caricatures, worthy of only our dislike as they meander through the indie blasé of the first twenty minutes.

Luckily, this all changes as the film trucks on thanks to some really fine development and direction by Holofcener. Not to give anything away, but we slowly learn about each of the characters fears, insecurities and past pain, opening them up as real human beings. While there isn’t much a plot in Please Give, as the five main characters mix and intermingle, you learn there is much more to this film than snarky quips and cold behavior. Each character is wonderfully drawn and realized, providing a center for the sometimes shocking humor, which almost always works and had me laughing out loud more than a couple of times. By the time the film ends, you not only understand each and every character in the film a bit better, you find things in your own life you can relate to and connect with. Add to that a couple of truly touching scenes, especially the scene where Keener visits a hospice for handicapped children and you have a film that works on both an emotional and comedic level.

Despite a very thin plot, Please Give is a touching and often hilarious character study of people searching for more than what they have, despite them having just enough. While the characters, at first, seem to have no redeeming qualities, the audience quickly learns that there’s pain behind the wall these people put up, walls that we all can find at least some connection to. Thinking back on this film and the comment my brother made almost eighteen months ago, I can see the kernel of truth in that statement reflected in the film. Those hard shelled characters certainly live on this island, strap hanging the subway, pushing past you at the supermarket, muttering grumpily as they speed past on the sidewalk. What that quote doesn’t take into account, however, is how they got there and what’s really inside these unique characters when you brush aside the bristles. Please Give does exactly that, providing a funny, charming and oft outrageous character study of six New York characters, all searching for their own special something, just like everybody else in this great city.

Score – 80%

Originally Reviewed – 4/2/2011

Call me lucky, picky or even snobbish, but I rarely see bad movies. Being I spend entirely too much time on websites like this one, I’m usually aware of what the critics say and I typically go with their recommendations when it comes to what I watch, especially if I’m forking over cash to do so. However, once in a while, I’ll succumb to my baser temptations and in the defiance of critical approval, I’ll see something I know is going to stink. Last year it was The Expendables, a completely terrible film yet one I had a blast watching, if only to laugh at its ineptitude. So, when a friend and I missed a screening of Tim Burton’s Beetlejuice this past weekend and was stuck needing something to see, a combination of a convenient starting time, an IMAX presentation and the promise of things blowing up urged us to see the latest film by Zach Snyder, Sucker Punch. Our expectations were low: sure it was going to be bad, but maybe deliciously so, much like that horrible Stallone effort from the previous year. Sadly, the flick didn’t even reach that low strung expectation as it not only fails as a cinematic experience, it fails to even raise the heart rate of comic book audience it was intended for. Sucker Punch, in short, is a soulless bore.

Doomed from the beginning, Sucker Punch jumps out of the gate covered in lame sauce, presenting the audience with an uncomfortable opening sequence involving some fat guy attacking our lead heroine for some reason or another. According to Wikipedia, which I seriously need to refer to in order provide any sort of synopsis, during this sequence our hero, dubbed Baby Doll, mistakenly kills her sister in an attempt to save her from her abusive father. As a result, she is sent to a mental hospital by her father and is scheduled to be lobotomized in five days. During that time she delves into her imagination to keep herself sane while she awaits her demise. Again, I had to go to Wiki-freaking-pedia to get that because if that’s what the film was trying to say, it sure as snot didn’t do a good job of it. Instead, we get jangly rock music, a bunch of slow motion scenes with Baby Doll staring doe faced into the camera and bullet casings hitting the floor. In slow motion, no less! What a visual treat!

And what a segue into the only thing people are really seeing this for, the visuals. Now, Snyder has made a career of pushing the envelope when it comes to computer generated spectacle, with films such as 300 and to a lesser extent, Watchmen. Sucker Punch provides much of the same visual bombast only times a thousand. In short, it’s too much for anybody to absorb, never mind take seriously. In any one scene you have bullets flying, robots getting destroyed, places crashing, stuff exploding and buildings crumbling. Sounds great, right? So, why did these action scenes not only bore me but put the crowd of opening weekend fanboys I saw it with to sleep as well? Because all that noise becomes sleep inducing without a competent story to give it context and meaning. Sucker Punch makes the grand mistake of thinking it has something important to say when the tale is as shallow as teenage fan fiction. The action scenes only highlight the weakness of the material because the female characters are just as hollow as the mindless thugs and robots they slaughter by the thousands. Snyder may know how to program a special effects computer but he has not an inkling of insight into human motivations or what elicits emotion from an audience and frankly, I don’t think he cares. Sucker Punch would have made for a fine ten minute tech demo but that’s about it.

As for the action in Sucker Punch being described as “videogamey” by some critics, that moniker is nothing but an insult to video games. Even the most intense gaming experiences provide some sort of character development and since the person playing them is personally involved in the events of the story, they naturally connect to the game. Sadly, we don’t play movies, we passively watch them, which is why there’s more to filmmaking than fancy visuals and visceral thrills. Sitting through the action scenes of Sucker Punch is like watching a friend play Call of Duty for two plus hours; it grabs your attention for the first ten minutes but after awhile, either you want to grab the controller yourself or do something you can actually care about. Films need story and character development to keep our attention, two things that Sucker Punch not only fails miserably at, never makes an honest attempt at providing.

In fact, it’s that very subject that brings the most bile to my throat when discussing this waste of time. The biggest crime committed by Sucker Punch is way it treats its characters, its story and ultimately its audience. Staged like levels in a 1990’s video game, the film flips between scenes of emotionally ravaged hookers either cowering to their alpha-male superiors or using their sexuality to get the best of them and the aforementioned fantasy fight scenes. Framing his female characters like Charles Manson likely would, Snyder presents them as quivering weaklings only able to muster strength when they delve into their imaginations. This 1850’s way of thinking of women is at the core of the storyline and the film just bleeds this disdain out from its pores. Creating a band of femme fatales can be a ton of sexy, edgy fun but that fun derives from the strength of character in the women involved. Sucker Punch sets up the action as solely existing in the imaginations of our broken down protagonists and as a result, gives us actions that nobody could possibly care about. The fact that Snyder would assume that we as an audience would care about these paper cut out characters without any sort of proper development is downright insulting.

Needless to say, I could go on and on. Much like the Star Wars prequels, one could write a Masters thesis on Sucker Punch with the topic being, “How Not To Make An Action Movie”. Filmed and written as if Hollywood gave $82 million to a horny 15 year old and said, “Go make a movie, sonny”, Sucker Punch treats its characters and story with such a misogynistic and mean-hearted slant, I actually question the soul of the director responsible. Not to turn this into a personal attack, but if Zach Snyder actually thinks this noisy, mean and borderline sadistic piece of white noise should actually be considered entertainment, I have to wonder about the maturity of this so called artist. Full of plot holes, contrivances and an ending that screams hack at the top its computer generated lungs, Sucker Punch is schlock that swears it’s Shakespeare and what’s worse, assumes you the viewer doesn’t know the difference. One of the few movies I’ve paid to see that I felt compelled to walk out on an hour in, Sucker Punch is exactly as advertised: a punch in the gut to anybody who feels they deserve more from a film than two hours of ear splitting din.

Score – 10%

Originally Reviewed – 3/6/2011

Jason Statham is one bad ass mo’ fo’. Seriously, the keister this guy kicks knows no bounds. From building jumping in The Transporter to hanging from helicopters in Crank to trying not to laugh at Sly Stalone’s lines in The Expendables, Statham has defined himself as this generation’s Van Dame, an action hero for the iPod generation. Trouble is, if you saw his starring debut in Snatch, you knew he could do so much more than bash bad guys and look good with his shirt off. Statham has a likable personality and a quick wit that separates him from his contemporaries, a kind of over-muscled bar keep who can spin a good yarn while at the same time fling you out a window for getting too rowdy. Despite this panache, nobody aside from Guy Ritchie has ever been able to utilize his charm and Statham has been largely regulated to loud, testosterone filled action flicks for the last decade. Does The Mechanic solve this problem and let its star fill the screen with charm instead of bulk?

Nope.

But in fairness to the filmmakers, they really didn’t let any of the films characters live beyond the written word and to be honest, I doubt that was their intention. The Mechanic is a by the numbers action flick that while providing some decent thrills and some inventive ways of dispatching enemies, the film is rife with clichéd situations, poorly drawn characters and missed opportunities. Sure it’s not meant to be more than a brisk ninety minutes beat ’em up, but with a little effort it could have been exceeded that expectation.

Set in modern day New Orleans, The Mechanic stars Statham as hired gun, tasked by men of power to slay other men of power in sneaky, untraditional ways. However, when sent to kill his mentor, played by Donald Sutherland, Statham inexplicitly takes his mentor’s wild child son under his wing (Ben Foster) and trains him to be the very killing machine that slayed his father. The film immediately starts on the wrong foot, doing nothing to establish any of the characters involved. We get a quick scene between Statham and Sutherland, Sutherland hands Statham some cash for a job well done and just when we start to see an inkling of a relationship, it’s BOOM, right back into another action scene. Using the characters a device to get from one action scene to another, we never feel for the participants in the action and, as a result, cease to care.

The characters themselves, however, do a very decent job with the slop their given. Statham, as mentioned before, is fun to watch and Sutherland, for the brief time he’s on screen, also looks to be giving it his all. Foster, however, is the brightest star in this bunch, giving a slightly disconnected but grounded performance. The kid can act, as evidenced in The Messenger and 3:10 To Yuma, and he does his best to find something in the paper thin character presented to him. Still, the efforts of the very decent cast is all for naught as the film degenerates into bloodshed, baseless violence. Perhaps the biggest affront is how the character of New Orleans is treated. Despite being filmed almost entirely in the Big Easy, you never get a real feel for the character of the city, something that I label as a huge missed opportunity.

All in all, The Mechanic is exactly as advertised: a white knuckle thrill ride that never elevates itself above the standard early year action flick archetypes it aspires to. Featuring a dismissible storyline, a cliché ridden script and an ending that makes almost no sense, The Mechanic survives, albeit barely, by the likeability of its cast. Without Statham and company, this film probably wouldn’t have seen a release never alone been viewable. To be fair, there is a place in cinema for pure escapist filmmaking and when it’s done right, it can be damn enjoyable. In the case of The Mechanic, however, the visceral thrills of the action can’t hold up to the pure weakness of the characters involved. Statham and company deserve better than this one noted piece of mid February action flick filler. Here’s hoping, at least in the case of Statham, that they actually get it.

Score – 50%

Originally Reviewed – 2/23/2011

The evening I watched City of God was preceded by a horrid day. One of those days you wish would just fly by so you didn’t have to experience it, it was riddled with bad weather, annoying e-mails and a headache so bad, a lobotomy couldn’t have cured it. Even when sitting down to watch the movie, my Blu-Ray player decided to take the evening off, forcing me to watch it on my old as butt PS2. Such indignities! However, the horrors of my day served as a fine backdrop for a viewing of the insightful and frightening City of God. Why? Because this film, unlike the banalities of my day to day problems, is rooted in something real, something dangerous. City of God is an eye opening looking into the day to day lives of people surrounded by real problems and real danger.

Taking place in the slums of Rio de Janerio, one of the most dangerous areas in all of Brazil, City of God tracks the life of young Rocket, an aspiring photographer who has family ties to one of the more notorious gangs in Rio. Through the course of the film, Rocket sees friends and family succumb to the trails and temptations of gang life and, through the lens of his camera, does what he can to rise above it. Modeled after real gangs, filmed in real locations and using actors who actually live in the slums the story takes place in, City of God has an authenticity and realism that makes the on screen action feel more like a documentary than a fictional tale.

While this film garnered four Oscar nominations, impressive for a foreign language film, the most deserving nod was for Best Cinematography. Frantically yet beautifully shot, cinematographer Cesar Charlone captures the hard boiled streets of Rio in stunning, unflinching detail. The direction is also noteworthy as the story of Rocket and the gangs around him is told with harsh realism and palpable emotion. On the acting front, only one of the actors on screen had ever been in a film before, many of whom made their home in the very ghetto being depicted, but everyone does a convincing job in their respective roles. My only complaint would be the part of Little Zie, the most ruthless of the gang leaders. While most of the violence in the film was contextualized, Zie’s character comes off almost too over the top with few references made to why he’s so maniacal.

That, however, is a minor quibble when stacked against fine directing, cinematography that puts you right in the midst of gang warfare and a story of personal triumph that warms the heart as much as it scares the bejesus out of you. City of God is obviously a personal story as much as it’s a work of fiction and that personal touch comes through in every frame, creating a thrilling and emotional experience that’s a pleasure to watch. A crappy day at work becomes much less important after a viewing of this wonderfully done movie. Highly recommended!

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 1/17/2011

I love me some Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups.

Seriously. Like ’em, love ’em, can’t get enough of ’em. The perfect combination of two already wonderful food stuffs, RPBC’s are a classic treat. So, imagine my delight when they started appearing in almost everything. First it was ice cream, next in breakfast cereals until finally, a couple of days ago, I discovered them in a bag of Chips Ahoy cookies at my mom’s house. At that moment I thought, “Damn, I love Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups and all, but this is getting ridiculous. What’s next, peanut butter cup infused bananas”? But what did I do? Grabbed myself a couple, chomped down and enjoyed the heck out of them. In the end, even though I keep seeing that flavor over and over again, it doesn’t take away from the fact that it’s damn delicious. This is exactly how I feel about the boxing movie genre, and specifically its latest entry, The Fighter.

Much like the sweet confections mentioned above, the genre of boxing films all share a very similar plot and story arc. Tough guy comes from nothing, goes through a few trials and ends up on top where a) he then falls back down a precarious slope or b) the movie ends. While The Fighter follows the same predictable path of its predecessors, the film is helped by some well placed humor, a focus on family and some very fine acting.

The cast runs the gambit of acceptable to near brilliant. Mark Wahlberg plays Micky Ward, an up and coming boxer from the slums of Lowell, Massachusetts who’s looking for his next big break. Much has been reported of Wahlberg’s near four year preparation for the role and the hard work pays off as he certainly has the look and feel of a seasoned boxer. While his acting style is very by the numbers, Wahlberg does a fine if not unremarkable job in the title role. Also playing against type is Amy Adams, portraying a tough talking local bartender and Micky’s inevitable love interest. Adams also does a fine job in the part as it’s a relief to see her break away from the nice girl roles we’re used to seeing her in. High marks also have to be given to Melissa Leo as Micky’s mother and business manager. Winner of the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress this year, Leo tows the line between loving mother and tough manager effortlessly, giving the movie a much needed shot of freshness and originality.

Stealing the show, however, is the work of Christian Bale as Dicky Eklund, Mickey’s brother, trainer and closest confidant. Bale’s part is easily the most difficult of the cast as he not only has to connect with Wahlberg on a brotherly level but has to be unassumingly self destructive at the same time. Bale plays the part wonderfully, bringing a real honesty and empathy to the role. Dicky has the distinction of being the “King of Lowell” for his boxing career but has since fallen in the depths of a drug addiction that threatens to take down his whole family and the budding career of his brother. Dicky is easily the catalyst of the story and in hands of a lesser actor could have turned into a parody but Bale is pitch perfect in his portrayal. Bale actually just got himself a Golden Globe for his work and he is sure to a get an Oscar nomination in the next couple of weeks.

The story, however, runs very familiar ground. While I enjoyed the local flavor of Lowell and the connection between Bale and Wahlberg, the rest of the plot is standard boxing flick fare. Luckily, the screenplay is peppered with a surprising amount of humor that almost always works well, especially when Bale is on screen. Director David O. Russell directs his cast with startling insight into the working class toughness of this boxing family yet does so at the sacrifice of visual flair. This is a blandly shot film to be sure, but when you have a cast this good, that is more than forgivable.

All in all, The Fighter doesn’t break any new ground for the boxing genre but, much like those yummy peanut butter cups, it’s still a good time that pushes all the right buttons. There’s just something charming about the classic “everyman fighting against all odds” tale and that charm never gets old, no matter how many times you see it. In the case of The Fighter, this world weary tale is told with style, humor and excellent acting, giving the audience just enough nuance to elevate it beyond its clichés. While Rocky will always be the quintessential telling of this story, The Fighter has a few new tricks up its sleeve, mostly embodied in the work of Bale and Leo. Everyone else simply has to play to type supporting their great performances. To bookend this review with my candy reference, The Fighter is just like a pack of Dark Chocolate Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups: while an attempt was made to slightly change the classic flavor, the end result is the same old candy we grew up loving, a taste that still stands the test of time.

Score – 80%

Originally Reviewed – 1/11/2011

Way back when in the late 1940’s, James Cagney’s star had fallen a bit. Fresh from his second departure from Warner brothers, Cagney spent most of the decade trying to reshape his tough guy image by making movies his way. After starting an independent production company in 1943, Cagney Productions went on to produce a number of decent films including the well received 13 Rue Madeline. Despite the success of that movie, the company had seen some commercial failures as well, topping off with the historic flop, The Time of Your Life. Audiences rejected the notion that Cagney could be something more than a tough guy and the movie almost bankrupted the fledgling company. Then, in 1949, Cagney Productions, feeling financial and legal pressure from a number of fronts, begrudgingly merged with their old studio. Their first movie together? A little gangster flick masterpiece called White Heat.

Cagney plays gangster Cody Jarret, a train robbing, trigger happy mama’s boy who after going on the lamb for a train robbery, concocts a number of clever schemes to get away clean. While it’s ironic that right after his biggest flop Cagney went back to the role he knew best, it turned out to be the right move. One of the finest performances of his career, Cagney tows the line between trust, devotion to his mother and complete madness with absolute perfection. The real beauty of his performance is how Cagney plays the part completely unsympathetically, yet we all find ourselves secretly rooting for him to get away with the caper. The “mess hall” scene is particularly wonderful. While it’s easy to dismiss watching it with twenty-first century eyes, Cagney’s reactions and explosiveness holds up over sixty years later.

The rest of the cast is downright perfect, featuring John Archer as the treasury man after Cagney, Edmond O’Brien as an undercover cop and the lovely Virginia Mayo as Cagney’s love interest and accomplice. However, the scene stealer of the film has to be the fantastic Margaret Wycherly as Cagney’s doting mother. Every actress who has ever played either an over protective matriarch or an elderly head of a crime family owes a tribute to Wycherly’s performance. Cold, calculating and quietly manipulating, Wycherly shows that while Cagney is the boss of the gang, she’s the soul. The film is also wonderfully directed, well shot and cleverly written, making it a masterpiece of the film noir genre. One of the forgotten classics of American cinema, especially with modern filmgoers, White Heat stands the test of time as a landmark film. Cagney may not have been at his height when filming began but when all was said and done, this movie put him “on top of the world” once again.

Score – 100%

Originally Reviewed – 1/6/2011

“Filmmaking at its core is a visual medium. Books can tell you what a character is thinking but film has to show you. As a result, the greatest films ever made all share one property: you should be able to turn off the sound and still get the jist of the movie” – My Literature in Film professor, Fall 2003

Black Swan, the latest film by director Darren Aronofsky, is a prime example of that mantra. Combining stunning cinematography, fine acting and a classic story of drive, artistic devotion and personal transformation, Black Swan is one of the most visually intense films to come out this season.

Featuring the talents of an emaciated Natalie Portman as the prima ballerina, Mila Kunis as her mind tripping competitor and Vincent Cassel as the production’s director, Black Swan is well cast from top to bottom. Portman in particular shines and will most likely gardener an Oscar nomination for her portrayal of the technically perfect but dispassionate young star. While Portman starts slow via seemingly mundane interactions with her mother, she hits her stride once tasked with the job of dancing both the innocent White Swan and the sensual Black Swan. Portman is near brilliant in the way she plays an artist letting go and continues to build in strength all the way to the films spellbinding conclusion. As for the other principals, Kunis and Cassel do a fine job in their respective roles, but it’s Portman who’s going to get all the praise come February.

That being said, one can not talk about an Aronofsky film without bringing up cinematography which is damn near Oscar winning in Black Swan. The film is a visual masterpiece, breathtaking from the first frame and sweeping in emotional scale. The movie can be best described as tapestry in motion and much like a painter conveys emotion through brushstrokes, Aronofsky, along with cinematographer and long time collaborator Matthew Libatique, does the same with the camera. The special effects are also noteworthy in how seamlessly they are integrated with the story, allowing the audience to experience Portman’s slow descent first hand.

Playing much like an Aesop fable where the focus is the moral, Black Swan is one big metaphor from beginning to end. If you are familiar with the story of Swan Lake, you’ll know exactly how things are to play out in Black Swan. Unfortunately, in an effort to make sure everything in the film connects to their appropriate themes, character development goes by the boards. While nicely acted, the characters don’t have much behind the gaunt faces and sweeping dances, making them difficult to connect with. During one particularly intense scene between Portman and her mother, I found myself simply not caring about her borderline abusive situation. Not a knock against the actors involved, mind you, just a by product of a focus on the connecting the story points in lieu of strong character development.

Despite some weak characters, Aronofsky has hit another home run with Black Swan. Intensely gripping, especially as it speeds towards a breath taking conclusion, the film is visual storytelling at its finest. In fact, the movie’s final half hour is some of the best filmmaking I’ve seen all year. While I doubt it’s going to make a splash at the Oscars, I could definitely see a few Golden Globes coming down the pike for Portman and company.

You know, writing this review made me think about something. Maybe my film professor from eight years ago taught at NYU at some point. And what if, in his class, there was a plucky young filmmaker with dreams of making that “one great flim”. And perhaps my old teacher said the same line about the classics remaining classics even when the sound is muted. If so, my professor should be proud. Aronofsky was a great student of the art form and made himself a film for the ages.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 12/14/2010

Ah, yes. Prestige Season. The special time of year when the air turns crisper, the season turns jolly and the thoughts of film executives turn fondly to awards season. Blockbusters may bring in the bucks but awards bring in the margins and if a studio’s three million dollar pet project can get some Oscar buzz, it’s all profit for Mama Hollywood. Even better, now is the time when us film geeks get to see the good stuff, the stuff that allows us to wax poetic over pints about films nobody else in the bar will ever leave their homes to watch. While this can be seen as putting on airs of snobbery to the Transformers crowd, to us film lovers this is our time of year to gloat about our hobby and revel in the cream of the cinematic crop. And with a ballot leading seven Golden Globe nominations, The King’s Speech is definitely on the tip of film foodies’ lips this December, and for very good reason.

Providing a bare synopsis of this movie fails in two ways. One, it makes the film sound haughty and overly high-minded and two, it makes the thing sound unbearably boring. Allow me to demonstrate:

“The Kings Speech is the true story of the Duke of York, who, after the sudden abdication of his brother, King Edward VIII, has to deal with the political realities of a lifelong speech impediment. With the help of his wife and an unorthodox speech therapist, the newly crowned king must overcome this obstacle and make an important speech to a country on the brink of war”.

Christ, I put myself to sleep while typing that! I think the name Edward, all by itself, has the same effect on me as Ambien.

As you can see, nothing brings me down more than a standard biopic and thank the heavens, The King’s Speech is anything but. In fact, director Tom Hooper does an outstanding job of balancing historic accuracy, real human drama and an uncanny knack for humor in his latest film. While the movie is shot, at times, in a very standard biopic way, Hooper treats the film like a stage performance, giving the characters room to breathe, interact and co-exist. Also, it’s worth noting again how damn funny this film is without ever getting silly, saccharine or overly light. What results is a well balanced character study of a visionary doctor and a tortured monarch.

Like most films of this type, the setting and dressing would be nothing without some fine performances and this is where The Kings Speech shines brightest. Colin Firth plays the speech addled duke and does so with a conviction, honesty and integrity that is marvelous to watch. Unlike the disappointing A Single Man, Firth is unencumbered by high minded photography and is instead allowed to encompass the spirit of King George VI without the overly directed meddling of Firth’s last effort. Brimming with subtlety, humor and raw emotion, Firth’s performance just might win him the Best Actor Oscar he missed out on last year.

That being said, if the Academy glosses over Firth, then they better hand over the trophy to the man who plays the good doctor, Geoffrey Rush. In playing the politically irreverent doctor, Rush also does a great job in balancing humor, empathy and an unwavering knowledge in the human condition. Firth and Rush complement each other wonderfully and every minute they are on screen together is a joy to watch. Helena Bonham Carter also does a fine job as Firth’s patient wife and the underrated Guy Pearce is well cast as the bad boy King Edward VIII, rounding out one of the best casts of the year.

All told, The Kings Speech is on the short list for winning Best Picture this year and for very good reason. One of the trickiest things to achieve in any artistic endeavor is balance. Lean too much to one side of the emotional spectrum, be it too dramatic, too funny or too sappy and you lose a portion of the audience. What The King’s Speech achieves better than any Oscar season film I’ve seen this year is reach a point where literally anybody could watch this film and enjoy it. Hopefully the Oscar buzz surrounding this movie is enough to propel it to wide screening status as I truly feel anybody and everybody will find something to love from this movie. A sublimely made film in almost every aspect, The King’s Speech is one of the easiest film going recommendations I’ve made this year and is a slam dunk nominee for Best Picture. While I would have whistled a different tune after seeing 127 Hours a month before, the accessibility, charm and stunning acting all make this my current pick for film’s highest honor.

Score – 100%

Originally Reviewed – 11/23/2010

Before I start this review of the latest film from director Tony Scott, I need to spend a minute talking about my different ratings systems. In my opinion, different genres of film require a different level of critical analysis. Dramas are mainly judged on the story the director is trying to convey on screen, comedies are based on belly laughs and some films are evaluated simply on how much I would spend to own it. For example, the Social Network is worth buying the 40 disc special edition, Crank is worth keeping if your aunt gave it to you for Christmas and I wouldn’t buy The Expendables if it were on the five dollar rack at my local Walmart and I had that exact amount left on a gift card. Welcome to another of my methods of film evaluation, the Popcorn System.

Reserved mainly for action films, the system is simple. When seeing a movie in theaters, due to diet, money and a host of other reasons, I limit myself to one small popcorn. The film in question then gets judged on how much of the crunchy stuff is left in the bag. The more the film does its job in sweeping me away, the more compulsively I munch. Conversely, if the flick is boring me to tears, I’ll have enough presence of mind to leave the stuff alone, saving me a few calories. Unstoppable features more clichés than an episode of Friends, hammy characterization and passable acting yet, guess what. At the end, my popcorn bag contained only a smattering of un-popped kernels. Despite all the silliness of the thing, Unstoppable is an exciting and enjoyable flick worthy of checking out on the big screen.

For a film of this ilk, it’s almost a waste talking about directing and acting, but despite the obvious plot contrivances, Unstoppable actually succeeds on both points. Director Tony Scott knows exactly how to make a roller coaster style film, as evidenced in flicks like Enemy of the State, True Romance and even the critically maligned Top Gun. Despite a script that has a shotgun’s blast worth of plot holes in it, the film has enough kinetic energy in it to keep the audience involved. Tony Scott succeeds again in giving audiences many reasons to gasp, perched on the edges of their chairs, even if their brains can take a little nap.

On the acting front, Denzel Washington and Chris Pine seem like they are having genuine fun making this one, important when the dialogue is so laughably corny. The duo has fine on screen chemistry, making their journeyman / newbie relationship believable and engaging. While Denzel is fine, if not unspectacular as the twenty eight year railroad veteran, Pine continues to impress me as a Hollywood leading man. Charismatic with enough acting chops to get through a script, Pine should have a bright future as a marquee name. While the script doesn’t require much heavy lifting or soul searching, this is a well cast movie in almost every respect, even if the characters border on caricature.

Throughout the movie, there are multiple moments that are so dependant on contrivance that you can actually predict the line before they come out of the actor’s mouth. At one point in the film, I was literally saying the next line before Denzel did. This would actually be a fine drinking game, if you were to see this at home. In spite of this weary narrative, Unstoppable hits its marks exactly where you’d expect it to, providing some nice thrills at furious pace. Sure, none of it makes sense in the real world but sometimes, a film can live in a world of its own. In this world, where speed limits are suggestions and everyone has a back story, is where Unstoppable lives and for that space in time provides great visceral thrills that rank as some of the best in Tony Scott’s career. Besides, that empty greasy popcorn bag never tells a lie.

Score – 70%