B
Baby Mama
★★★★ / ★★★★
This film made me smile from ear to ear from the time it started until the credits started rolling. Tina Fey and Amy Poehler is an excellent duo because each of them are funny in a different way. Poehler is more goofy-funny (I still laugh every time I think of her, “Bitch! I don’t know your life!” line). Fey is more low-key/smart funny. That’s why they work well together. The script is witty in its own way and it’s nicely paced. One-liners are abound and I couldn’t help but think about them on the way home. All the characters had something to contribute to the overall picture, which is nice to see in the comedy genre. The only minor problem I had with it is that it sometimes resulted to cliches (the romance between Fey and Greg Kinnear). Nonetheless, this definitely made me and my friend laugh. For those who are fans of “Superbad” and “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” this is a good choice to Netflix or even watch in the cinema. I know it’s going to get lost in the shuffle because of the premieres of big films like “Iron Man” and “Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay.” I just hope more people would give it a chance when they have time to spare.
Bad Lieutenant (1992)
★★ / ★★★★
Even though I really wanted to like this film more than I did, I can understand why it gained its cult following. The film features dark alleys and hallways as if to resemble the dark side of humanity. That metaphor is consistent throughout so it’s difficult not to admire Abel Ferrara’s direction. Each scene is so visceral and honest to the point where it was painful to watch; two scenes I can recall right away is the scene that involves a rape and when the lead actor (Harvey Keitel) actually sees Christ. Keitel pushes his acting ability to its limit and it was great to see. His character is extremely difficult to like because he’s on drugs pretty much every hour of every day, he doesn’t really care for his family, he terrorizes unknowing teenage girls and his obsession with gambling ultimately takes a toll on his soul. That latter component, in my opinion, is the one topic that’s fully explored. On the outside, it seems like he gambles for the money but if one were to look closely, it’s more about his desperation to stay in touch with reality. Without living in some kind of risk, it seems as though the lead character doesn’t feel like he exists–at least exist in a meaningful way. As much as I love symbolism and reading between the lines, at the same time, that’s the most frustrating part of this film. It doesn’t really let the audiences know why things are unfolding as they are. It’s open to interpretation so it automatically weeds out those who are unwilling to look past the grimy, nihilistic setting. To me, it needs more focus in terms of exploring its core and why this tortured character ended up the way he is. The pictures gives us a lot of scenes that involve Keitel’s character doing a lot of very bad things but without some sort of background, he becomes the enemy instead of someone we can watch all the way through–not necessarily root for. I admired this film’s many conflicting ideas but I cannot quite recommend it because I feel like it needed more substance instead of just featuring self-destruction for about ninety minutes.
Bad Santa
★★★★ / ★★★★
Next to “Fargo,” this is one of my definitions of “Dark Comedy.” I originally wanted to see the film because of Lauren Graham since I’m a big fan of “Gilmore Girls.” Little did I know that I was in for something more. Billy Bob Thorton shines in this picture in so many ways: he was sarcastic, politically incorrect, mean without being ashamed, and sardonic. Despite all those negative qualities, I wanted to watch more because the picture’s humor is addicting. I wanted to see more characters to suffer, get hurt, and embarrassed. This film is definitely not for everyone, which is why I’m recommending it because at first I didn’t know that this was the humor I can relate to the best. This is a definite stand-out from your typical Christmas movies. A must-see for its daring screenplay and witty (if not offensive) script. I love it!
Baghead
★★★ / ★★★★
I adore films that are able to prove that you can make a movie for basically next to nothing, but if it has a clever script then most of the other crucial components will come into place. I must mention Jay Duplass and Mark Duplass for writing and directing a movie that made me laugh and feel fear most often wrapped in one scene (some of the humor are borderline darkly comic). Even though it took its merry time to establish the characters and their motivations, hand-held camera and all, it was an interesting watch from start to finish. We find out something about each character after each minute, whether they may be talking about nothing or just sitting in awkward silence. Speaking of awkward, I did adore the awkward humor, which I don’t want to go into specifics because I don’t want to ruin the surprise for those who are interested in watching the film. I also want to commend the four actors: Ross Partridge, Steve Zissis, Greta Gerwig, and Elise Muller. Even though their acting might be a bit amateurish, I liked their zeal. Somehow, their style worked because I feel like they are people I can meet anywhere; they seem very amicable. But I must say that they’re really good at freaking out and being cute with each other, basically the extremes. As for the horror aspect of this picture, I have to admit that I did get scared at times, especially during the night scenes, specifically in the last thirty minutes. This is a pretty effective horror-comedy that almost feels like a documentary because of the hand-held camera. Don’t let the low budget scare you because the filmmakers really do have something interesting to offer.
Band’s Visit, The
★★★ / ★★★★
This movie put a smile on my face from beginnning to end because the characters find something magical in awkward situations. An Egyptian police force (who is also a band) visits Israel to perform at a ceremony in an Arab arts center but their transportation did not pick them up. They have no choice but to spend the night in a middle of nowhere desert town where they meet kind Israelis (led by the strangely alluring Ronit Elkabetz). The leader of the police force is played with quiet power by Sasson Gabai. From the moment the film started, he is established as a serious person who is deeply conflicted. Later on, we find out why he keeps people at an arm’s length. Through his interactions with Elkabetz, we see chinks in Gabai’s armor; it is touching in just the right amount and it was done in a natural way. Elkabetz impressed me in so many ways because reminded me of Sonia Braga’s acting style: she can be tender and seductive while at the same time standing up for something she believes to be right. Last but not least, Saleh Bakri as the playboy member of the force manages to provide warmth in the picture. Even though he gets distracted too easily by women, he knows how to treat them right. His relationship with Gabai is interesting but it wasn’t fully developed. When the film ended, I felt like the filmmakers were just about to explore that relationship. But that’s what I love about slice of life pictures: not every problem or conflict has to be solved in a span of two hours. Even though this film barely runs for an hour and thirty minutes, it accomplished a lot. One of the best themes of the movie is finding similarities between two very different cultures, whether it comes to music, relationships, and being wounded by the past. The three main characters share a certain loneliness and I could identify with each of them equally. I also find this film commendable because it did not result to being political. It’s about people being themselves and why that should be enough to be able to relate to one another in a meaningful way.
Bank Job, The (2008)
★★★ / ★★★★
This is one of the best heist films to come out of recent years. Instead of being another polished caper movie like “The Italian Job” (which I liked a lot), this is more gritty and more realistic, which makes it that much more interesting. There were a lot of scenes where I found myself either nearly falling off the couch or biting my nails because the characters are always placed in some form of danger. I’m surprised by the pace of this picture: the actual bank robbery was already done fifty minutes into it; the real drama comes after the crime–which is a bold and quite brilliant strategy of storytelling. Each of the character that robbed the bank was featured in some way before the job so the audience got to know them at least a little bit so we care what would happen to them later on. It’s funny how more complications arise after they get all their shares than before breaking into the vault. Jason Statham made this picture that much more interesting because, once again, he’s the guy who’s tough on the outside but is really kind-hearted inside; he’s very conflicted so he’s not exactly saintly either. Pretty much all of the elements here worked for me (especially the twists and turns) so I’m giving this movie a very enthusiastic recommendation.
Barry Lyndon
★★★★ / ★★★★
I can’t say that this is one of my favorite films from Stanley Kubrick, but I have to admit that this picture is extremely well-crafted. I was impressed that Kubrick shot each scene with only natural light such as the sun during the day and candles during the night. His use of certain cameras that tend to highlight the magnificient backgrounds is nothing short of brilliant. Like “Full Metal Jacket,” the topic of duality is explored in a meaningful way. The first part of the film focuses on Redmond Barry (Ryan O’Neal): how he left his family and joined the British Army. The second part of the film is about Barry Lyndon (still played by O’Neal) and his attempt to attain the respect he can never achieve. Redmond Barry and Barry Lyndon, though the same person, are completely different from each other. The former is naive and honorable, but the latter is hungry for wealth and power. On the outside, it’s about the rise and fall of man. But I think it’s so much more than that. “Barry Lyndon” is a classic example of a man so willing to change himself by forgetting his past as he tries to gather wealth and power (by marrying Marisa Berenson who plays Lady Lyndon), all the while not caring about anyone who gets hurt by his actions. At the same time, he’s not viewed as a completely evil person because of the events that shaped him; he still has the capability to love even though he does not show it in an apparent manner. I can see why most people would initially dismiss this film because it is very slow-moving. However, if one learns to embrace its slow nature, he or she will be rewarded by its epic historical story. I wasn’t surprised when I found out that this film won two Oscars–Best Cinematography amd Best Costume Design–because I’ve never seen anything like it. Each prop is gorgeous, especially the clothes and the paintings on the walls. Many times in the movie, especially during the second half, I felt like I was visiting a museum, not just because of the aesthetics, but also due to the echoes created by the characters’ feet and the whispers in conversations. Kubrick really was a perfectionist and it shows because each of his work is always exemplary. This is a difficult film to swallow and one of the reasons is its three-hour running time. However, it’s a fascinating character study. Barry Lyndon doesn’t realize that by forgetting where he comes from, he loses a significant portion of himself and therefore cannot grow to be a better person. He finds happiness in material things but never realizes that all he had to do was look inside himself. And that is only one of the many tragedies that this breathtaking film has to offer.
Barton Fink (1991)
★★★ / ★★★★
Written and directed by the Coen brothers, “Barton Fink” tells the story of a playwright (John Turturro) who was hired to write for the movies in Hollywood after his celebrated success on stage in New York. Everyone assumed he had a natural gift for telling stories about the common man so they thought that his writing would immediately translate from stage to pictures. However, right when Barton arrived in his dingy hotel room, he got a serious case of writer’s block. This film was rich in symbolism and it was fun deciphering each of them. However, unlike some of the Coen brothers’ less enjoyable dark comedies, the symbolism and ironies did not get in the way of the fantastic storytelling. Turturro did such a great job as a writer struggling to find an inspiration. He’s very human because he is full of self-doubt yet it was very easy to root for him to succeed because he doesn’t let fame get into his head. In fact, when annoying neighbors (John Goodman) prevent him from concentrating on his work, he welcomes (at first warily) instead of condescends. I also enjoyed the supporting work of Steve Buscemi, Tony Shalhoub and Judy Davis. Their performances reminded me of the best noir pictures in the 1940’s and 1950’s–sometimes in the extremes but they have certain qualities that are so specifically Coen and therefore modern. The last forty minutes of the film completely caught me off-guard. Just when I thought I was finally going to get a more “typical” movie from the Coen brothers, they pulled the rug from under my feet and gave me twist after twist to the point where I found myself struggling to keep up (in a good way). Putting the pieces of the puzzle together was half the fun in analyzing this project. The other half was more about its play on the subtleties and how those little things eventually add up to trigger something so big that it completely changes the rules of the game altogether. The film may be more comedic on the outside but sometimes the darkness underneath it all seeps out from within. And when it happens, I was nothing short of enthralled. If one is interested in movies that are genre-defying but still makes sense as a whole, then I absolutely recommend watching “Barton Fink.” It requires a little bit of thinking because it takes a lot of risks but it’s more than worthwhile. I hope to discover more treasures (and hopefully love it that much more) the second time I get the chance to see it.
Bathhouse
★ / ★★★★
I decided to see this film because I was curious about what Filipino gay cinema has to offer. Unfortunately, this one is a big disappointment. It doesn’t really have a focus even though it had a lot of ideas that it tried to get across. It mostly likely has something to do with Crisaldo Pablo’s direction. The story started off with nerdy and naive Ray An Dulay falling for a much older Jet Alcantara. Eventually, Dulay’s innocence was shed and he became someone that he wish he was in the first place. Becoming someone that he wanted to become took a toll on his personality and his relationships with the people he loves most. Out of nowhere, the picture tried to inject new ideas such as loneliness, the hardships of finding the right person in a society where being a homosexual is looked down upon (most Filipinos are Catholic; though one can argue that most Filipinos do accept homosexuality because they’re always on television) and how gays tend to be disgusted with each other. Personally, I found the latter to be the most interesting because I think it’s the most honest. There’s already a plethora of gay love stories and the story here felt all too recycled. On the other hand, I do feel like gays do feel some sort of disgust with each other in real life. So, an exploration of that idea would make an interesting movie. The script didn’t help either because because it felt a bit too soap opera. I didn’t need the subtitles because I can understand Tagalog but even the first-hand experience of hearing the original script wasn’t enough to push through. I felt that whenever it is about to go into that vulnerable place, it hesitates and faces toward a less in-your-face subject. That’s the most frustrating aspect I found in “Bathhouse” and it happened again and again so I lost interest. The actor whose character I wanted to get to know more, however, was John Lapus. Even though he’s your stereotypical gay, there’s a certain anger and vulnerability in him that defies his mannerisms and outer appearance. I think if the movie focused on him instead of Dulay and Alcantara (and their lack of chemistry), this would’ve been a stronger movie. In the end, this is another one of those forgettable foreign gay movies.
Batman
★★★ / ★★★★
Batman is my favourite superhero but I must admit that I did not like this film the first time I saw it. The Joker, played by Jack Nicholson, is supposed to be 75% crazy mixed with complete menace and 25% funny in a twisted manner. Instead, Nicholson played The Joker as more even between the two extremes. I guess my main problem is the first half; the second half picked up the pace because that’s when all the action happened. As the film went along, The Joker became scarier due to his methods of killing and his darkly amusing one-liners. As for Batman, played by Michael Keaton, I thought he was a bit weak and I wanted to get to know him better. Although we got a taste of his past, he spent too much of his time brooding in his Batcave. Most people claim that this is the best “Batman” film to date. I cannot disagree more because this is highly uneven. Yes, it’s extremely stylish (excellent use of shadows!) but it’s hard to care for the characters. If I were to pick the best “Batman” films, it would be among “Batman Begins,” “Batman Returns,” and “The Dark Knight.” In “Batman Begins,” Batman is the center of the story and no villain took the spotlight from him. It’s the most realized Batman film overall. In “Batman Returns,” we get to sympathize with the villains (Penguin and Catwoman), which is rare in superhero adaptations. This first “Batman” film is a good start but non-hardcore fans might be a bit put off. Still, I’m recommending it for sheer style.
Batman Begins
★★★★ / ★★★★
Christian Bale is the best Batman ever since Michael Keaton. We quickly cared for him because we learned about his traumatic past and he eventually becomes a person that wants to lead Gotham out of the criminals’ hands. Batman is my favourite superhero because he doesn’t have or need superpowers to save people. Instead, he uses his own fear against evil-doers so that they would fear what he fears. I think this film embodied that and it was spot-on. Michael Cane is really funny in this film as Alfred. It’s nice to have him as a breath of fresh air when things get a little too serious. Cillian Murphy is perfect as Scarecrow because of his steely blue eyes that seem to penetrate your soul. Not only that, every scene he’s in, he dominates because he delivers his lines so devilishly, it’s nothing short of perfection. Last, but not least, is Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox; in a way, he’s like Alfred because he has a perfect comic timing. And who doesn’t like Morgan Freeman? This definately reboots the entire Batman franchise and the best since “Batman Returns.”
Beach, The
★ / ★★★★
It started off okay but then as the movie went on, it got really random and confusing. This was supposed to be a thriller but there were a plethora of cheap and false scares, to the point where it got exhausting. The only glimmer of good thing about this picture is Leonardo DiCaprio. You can tell he’s committed to prove himself as a serious actor, especially right after the masterful “Titanic.” The little quirks that he added to his character were entertaining, unlike the picture as a whole. Another actor that stood out was Tilda Swinton. It’s impossible for her to play a boring character. When she finally shows her teeth, it was kind of scary. As for the negative things, I thought the concept of isolation could’ve been better executed. There was this brilliant scene regarding a shark attack that delved into a bigger issue. I just wish there were more scenes like that. Moreover, the concept of reality vs. fantasy was amusing instead of fascinating. Pretty much everything went wrong, and with a running time of two hours, it’s just unforgivable. Avoid this film if you can because it’s pretty much about nothing that pretends to be about something.
Bear Cub
★★★★ / ★★★★
I didn’t expect to love this movie because of its coy title and familiar plot summary but the way it told the story with such intelligence and emotion is impressive. This Spanish gay-themed but not gay-centered film, written and directed by Miguel Albaladejo, focuses on José Luis García Pérez and the way he takes care of his nephew (David Castillo) when his mother decides to go to India. Each of the character is memorable because they are full of surprises. For instance, I couldn’t help but laugh and have a smile on my face afterwards when the hippie mother revealed that she thinks her son is gay and it’s wonderful/a gift. She has a certain energy and spunk which made me think of my own mother. Pérez may be gay and lives an openly gay lifestyle but that’s not even half of who he really is. He’s a great father-figure but he just doesn’t know it because he’s too preoccupied asking himself what would be best for his nephew. As for Castillo, he was actually given a character to portray, a character that helps to drive the story forward. As the film went on and we get to meet other characters such as the grandmother (Empar Ferrer), the story gets that much more interesting and serious. Toward the end of the film, some revelations occured and I couldn’t help but gasp because I didn’t see such twists coming. This gem of a Spanish film knows how to tell a simple but extremely layered story with colorful characters that doesn’t result to stereotypes. It manages to use its characters in such a way that if a particular character didn’t exist, the story would be that much weaker. I can only wish more American films are like this because it puts the characters’ motivations on the foreground and doesn’t judge their background. It really does make a difference when it comes to overall feel of the picture. Definitely check this one out if one is remotely interested.
Beast of Yucca Flats, The
★ / ★★★★
I’ve had my share of classic movies, believe me. I come to appreciate most of them even though they’re dated because, without them, modern cinema would not exist. Nonetheless, this supposed monster movie was a disaster, to say the least. The narrator was annoying, the performances incredibly below par (even for a classic film), and extremely tedious to the point where I wanted to pluck my eyes out. The only good thing about this movie is that it’s only about fifty minutes long. Regardless, it still feels like a two-hour movie because certain scenes just drag on and on and on.
Beautiful Ohio
★ / ★★★★
Chad Lowe’s directoral debut is rather difficult to get through because it doesn’t rise above the stereotypes regarding depressing suburban drama. William Hurt and Rita Wilson have two sons: David Call, a certified genius in mathematics, and Brett Davern, who is rather ordinary. Michelle Trachtenberg complicates the storyline by filling in the role as the not-so-girl-next-door who the two brothers happen to be attracted to. The first part of the film is rather interesting because it explores the jealously between the two brothers–mainly Davern struggling to live in his big brother’s shadow versus stepping out of it. I could relate to the two brothers because they pretty much have nothing in common except for their unconventional parents. Things quickly went downhill from there because the dialogue mostly consisted of the characters discussing theories, influential musicians and citing quotes from renowned individuals. Their pretentiousness created this wall between me and the characters. Therefore, when something dramatic happens to a particular character or a revelation occurs, I found myself not caring. I didn’t find anything particularly profound that drove the story forward either. Lowe really needed something above the whole parents-not-really-caring-about-their-children idea because it’s all been done before by better films. Davern reminded me of Emile Hirsch in “Imaginary Heroes,” which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but without the nuances of pain and complexity. If Lowe had explored the common theme of characters not understanding each other (literally through language or emotionally) in a more meaningful and not a heavy-handed manner, this picture would’ve worked. The revelation about a certain character in the end felt out of place. Don’t waste your time with this one.
Beau Travail (1999)
★ / ★★★★
This movie about French soldiers stationed in Djibouti left a big question mark in my head. At first I thought Claire Denis, the director, was trying to establish the characters via showing us the ennui of military life: from ironing clothes, making the perfect creases to the every day physical and mental training the soldiers had to endure. But half-way through the picture, nothing much changed and I felt myself becoming more and more frustrated with it. I wanted to know more about what made the characters tick. Instead, by the end of the picture, I couldn’t tell them apart (especially since they all have the same haircuts but that’s beside the point), I didn’t know anything about their motivations, and I didn’t know anything about their lives outside of the military. In a nutshell, it felt very one-dimensional. That feeling of detachment made me not care and watching the film was like pulling teeth. I’ve read some summaries from other reviews and they somehow found a story that the film tried to tell. Upon reading those reviews, I really felt like I watched a completely different movie because none of those descriptions matched what I saw (which was pretty much half-naked guys runnning around all over the desert). Don’t get me wrong; I enjoy movies that are stripped down with minimal dialogue but they have to have sort of emotional resonance. I didn’t find that in this picture despite my best efforts to look underneath the surface. The only scene that I genuinely enjoyed was the last when Denis Lavant broke into a dance. It felt like a huge sigh of relief because the rest of the movie felt so controlled, cold and tough. If they had more scenes like that, this train-wreck would’ve been saved. Unfortunately, it was too little too late.
Becoming Jane
★★★ / ★★★★
I must admit that after watching this movie, I thought that it provided accurate representation of Jane Austen’s life. I was so shocked to find out later that pretty much most of it was false. Nonetheless, I did enjoy this picture a lot. It actually made me want to pick up a book or write something about life that will inspire deep thinking. I did buy Anne Hathaway’s portrayal as Jane Austen, regardless of the initially distracting British accent, because she plays the role so earnestly; and how can one not love those puppy dog eyes of hers? James McAvoy plays another flawed but charismatic young man (that’s all he seems to be playing nowadays) and he did so with such ease. Maggie Smith stole every scene she was in, which is not necessarily a bad thing because the story could use a bit of wickedness and spice. For me, everything pretty much worked out. I tried to pay attention throughout because I’ve read “Pride and Prejudice” and I was interested on how the elements from that novel would come about in the film. If you are a fan of Jane Austen who does not mind (major) historical inaccuracies and is simply interested in the filmmakers’ interpretation of the film, go ahead and see it.
Bedrooms and Hallways
★★ / ★★★★
I usually like gay and lesbian films from Europe because most of them are more honest and are able to delve more into the lives of their characters than American films. However, this is one of those unfortunate exceptions. Overall, I liked the movie: the acting was okay, the cast is pretty good, and the story was tolerable. However, I didn’t like the movie’s ultimate message because it’s very inaccurate when it comes to portraying homosexuality. With that egregious ending, I was completely turned off by the film and I almost gave this a one star out of four prior to writing my review. But I did like it up until the ending so I decided to give it a break. It’s a really disappointing picture because, with a little tweak in the story here and there, this could’ve turned out to be an insightful commentary about gays that are entering or in their thirties. That issue of wanting to find the one and ultimately settling down is not fully explored, but only glossed over. The chemistry between Kevin McKidd and James Purefoy was cute but nothing groundbreaking. I also thought the bit about the friend (played by Tom Hollander) and the real state agent was distracting even though it provided the much needed humor. Overall, this movie had serious problems and needed a complete rewriting (especially the end) if it were to end up a good movie.
Bedtime Stories
★ / ★★★★
I understand that I’m not the target audience of this movie. That said, I do enjoy children’s movies from time to time because I’m a kid at heart, but I didn’t enjoy this even for one second. Although it had talented actors such as Adam Sandler (arguably), Keri Russell, Guy Pearce, Russell Brand, Richard Griffiths and Courtney Cox, the material was just too bland and uninteresting for smarter kids and adults. The premise of the picture is that Sandler tells a story to Cox’s children (Jonathan Morgan Heit and Laura Ann Kesling) and eventually they come true in some shape or form in real life. I found it to be an unfunny, one-note joke; I grew tired of it after thirty minutes, only to find out that I still have about an hour remaining. The bit about the school being demolished for a new hotel felt too forced. I wish the writers, Matt Lopez and Tim Herlihy, had more jokes that pertain to adults and something more concrete for the children. There were too many slapstick jokes but not enough gravity to establish why the audiences should care for the characters and the story. The point of telling stories is to escape reality. However, the stories that Sandler’s character told were ultimately one-dimensional. In my opinion, it would have been so much better if each story had a different genre yet there’s still a valuable lesson that can be learned. Instead, some of them are heavy on the special and visual effects but they do not seem to amount to anything. If one is contemplating to show this to his or her children, make sure to show it before bedtime because the children will most likely fall asleep somewhere in the middle.
Bee Movie
★★★ / ★★★★
The first few minutes was absolutely brilliant because there were scientific jokes about the actual lives of bees. The animation looks lively and great so it’s perfect for children. But as an adult, I wasn’t that entertained when the lead bee, voiced by Jerry Seinfeld, decided to take a lawful action against something. Some of the magic were lost and the jokes were not as sharp. I did like the interaction between the bee and the human because it reminded me of a less meaningful version of “Ratatouille.” It also reminded me of a less creative “A Bug’s Life.” Nonetheless, I’m not completely against recommending it because it does teach a lesson to kids about the importance of the environment and how people rely on nature to subsist. Everything was done in a light and goofy way; it made me smile from time to time (but I could only take so many bee puns). I’m also recommending this picture for sheer energy. I just wish that they had more material for adults so they wouldn’t get bored when they watch this movie with kids. But other than that, it’s not too shabby.
Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead
★★★ / ★★★★
I thought the first part of the film was fascinating and its plot was as focused as it could be. But as the picture went on, I kind of grew tired of it. I guess it’s because the whole jumping forward in time and back technique didn’t work for me. Each scene, it made me want to think if certain events had happened already. I think it would’ve been more effective if the story was told in a linear manner. The acting is first-class–Philip Seymour Hoffman completely blew me away. As the movie went on, he grew increasingly crazy. Though his transformation made me laugh and feel uncomfortable at times, I stayed with him all the way. He made each scene he was in that much more special. Ethan Hawke was great as well. I felt bad for him because he played the moral conscience of the story even though he was bathed in sins. Watching this film reminded me of an old-fashioned Greek tragedy. Classic factors that make up such a tragedy were present: murder, sabotage, things not going as planned, envy, greed, hatred… I could go on. I mentioned that I grew tired of it around the last few minutes. I’m not saying that the last few acts were uninteresting… It’s just that I knew what would eventually happen and I couldn’t wait for them to get there. It’s definitely a good film and well worth renting.
Be Kind Rewind
★★★ / ★★★★
Even though far from perfect in most respects, I’ve come to profusely adore this film. Not only is it funny because of the two leads (Jack Black and Mos Def), it’s a tribute to motion pictures, all the characters are likeable in their own way, and there’s a great message about the power of films which is directly related to the bond among communities. There’s an undeniable imagination that drives the picture which is then reflected in the home movies, which turn out to be pretty interesting, laugh-out-loud funny, or both. Nevertheless, I think that the writing could have been much sharper which could then have elevated the movie in a whole new level. For instance, I wanted to know more about Black and Def’s lives outside of the video rental place. How are their relationships with other people when things are not exactly light and fluffy? Those types of unanswered questions hindered this film a little bit. As for the critics saying that it was a wrong move referencing to “bad movies” like “Rush Hour 2,” I thought it was perfectly okay. For me, a movie is a movie regardless of its quality. I was surprised with the last twenty minutes of the film because it was really touching, especially the silent moments. Right then, I knew that “Be Kind Rewind” is not just a typical comedy of errors. It has many underlying messages that are worth looking at. In a nutshell, I strongly believe that the imperfections of this picture made it that much more brilliant. It’s not afraid to be silly because it has intelligence behind all of its ideas.
Ben-Hur
★★★★ / ★★★★
I’m not religious at all but I think the sheer power of this movie to move people is undeniable. I love how the filmmakers decided not to show the face of Jesus; every scene he was in, I gave my complete attention and I was captivated. Sure, I looked for the infamous homosexual subtexts and I was amused (because they are present), but that’s not fully why I thoroughly enjoyed this film. Everything about this movie is epic: the set, the people, the script… A lot of people think that it’s outdated and the actors don’t act natural but who cares, really? I didn’t care one bit because I was more concerned about the story and the message of the film regarding one’s self, family, and friendship (all of which revolve around power and vengeance). The chariot race scene is nothing short of breathtaking. I tried not to blink because a lot were at stake; it was exciting, scary, fun, humbling. If you’re open to a three-and-a-half hour epic, you will come out of it with a better understanding of things. I know I did. I’m looking forward to watching two other famous epics: “Lawrence of Arabia” and “Gone with the Wind.”
Bes vakit (2006)
★★ / ★★★★
“Bes vakit,” also known as “Times and Winds,” was a story about how three children stopped being kids because of the many responsibilities that their parents thrusted upon them. Ozkan Ozen decided to kill his father because he could no longer take the maltreatment and favoritism toward his precocious brother. Elit Iscan slowly headed for breakdown because her mother insisted that she made herself useful even if the amount of schoolwork was more than enough for her to handle. And Ali Bey Kayali developed on a crush on his teacher, only to stumble on the fact that his own father was spying on her through her bedroom window. I have to be honest and state that this film was particularly difficult for me to sit through because of the many lingering shots on certain objects and sceneries. As stunning as such images were, I personally would have preferred to see more character development, dialogue and conflict among the characters. Without that emotional pull, it’s hard for me to be invested in the movie. I’m not saying that this Turkish film is not at all worth seeing, but it really is more of an acquired taste. Personally, I can withstand slow-moving pictures but this one gradually wore down my patience. The rituals that the children engaged in became a bit too redundant and I failed to see the point of it all. I also felt that the relationships among the kids weren’t established and therefore did not come together in the end. While all of them were obviously unhappy, I needed to see more commonalities among them to further observe them in multiple dimensions. Although I was able to evaluable their motivations and take note of their varying psychologies, there was still a certain detachment that did not quite dissolve as the picture went on. Written and directed by Reha Erdem, “Times and Winds” offered beautiful landscapes and a certain poetry with its tone. However, I hardly think it was strong enough to warrant a recommendation for viewers. I’m afraid this was just one of those coming-of-age films that left a bitter taste on my palate.
Better Luck Tomorrow
★★★ / ★★★★
I thought this film would be more about race than anything else because I don’t see a lot of mainstream Asian pictures. I was impressed that race is secondary and the choices the characters make is primary. That way, it managed to avoid tripping over cliches that surely would’ve made audiences’ eyes roll. It definitely reminded me of the people I was around with in high school. Although our lives were not as dramatic as this film, they did certain unwise actions just because they had everything going for them. Essentially, they were so bored with their lives, they just wanted to feel alive. What better way to feel that way than to engage in violence and drugs. Even though this movie had a small budget, it’s accurate in its portrayal, which made it all the more haunting. For me, the best scenes are when the characters would put themselves in situations that they don’t like or agree with, but they do it because it’s something that they can put in their college applications. I was never like one of those people but it still rings close to home because I’ve known people like that. They’d go crazy if they don’t get a particular internship or if they slip up just a little bit. This is a sad film in its core and is worth seeing, especially by young adolescents.
Beyond Hatred
★★★ / ★★★★
Despite the title, I thought this was going to be another angry response to a gay-bashing crime. I was surprised that this film was titled to the sentimental side and the fact that it was very grounded in its approach. The interviews were sometimes very sad because the use of realism was at its finest. I can’t say that I agree with the family’s actions but I definitely respect them for it. The audience can get the feel that the family did make a very hard decision because it took a lot of time and acceptance. There’s not much to say about the film because there is only one plot. It spends about an hour and a half to gather the events that have happened after the crime. Although it can be a bit slow at times, the second half managed to pick things up, especially with the courtroom proceedings. If one is interested in a film that has a different way of dealing with a murder–a murder that took place just because someone is different, this picture is recommended.
Beyond the Gates
★★★ / ★★★★
The second half of the film is excellent. The pivotal scene for me when this movie changed from merely okay to borderline great was when Joe admitted that the reason why he went to Africa was his sign of appreciation because, as a child, he had everything he needed and wanted. Working with that revelation is one of the reporter’s confession that, to her, when she sees dead white females, she thinks one of them could have been her mother. But when she sees dead black females, she thinks they’re “just dead Africans.” That got to me so much because it was raw and honest. Upon watching moments like that, I had to give out a huge sigh because it’s too much to absorb. Yes, this deals with issues that has been tackled by the great film “Hotel Rwanda.” But I do have to say that this film’s approach to the issues is different. This is worth checking out in order to remind yourself that genocides in Africa (and other parts of the world) DID happen and ARE happening. Also, make sure to stay before the credits roll. More emotional punches await.
Big Fish
★★★ / ★★★★
I’ve mentioned many times before that I love films that are about the power of imagination. This is one of those pictures but it does not completely lose track of reality. Instead of using imagination as its main weapon, it becomes the backdrop. What is at the forefront is family relationships, especially between a father who loves to tell stories to whoever he meets and a son that fails to extract the facts from fiction. Eward McGregor has a certain freshness and vitality that one cannot ignore. Every scene he’s in, he seems to have that smirk that symbolizes a thinking man. Due to his charm, I was able to follow the story with ease and interest. Albert Finney is heartbreaking as the father that has stories for any occassion. He’s the heart of the story because he is able to provide warmth, humour, and sadness all at the same time, in more than a handful of scenes. Billy Crudup plays the son who yearns for the truth and he plays the character with such realism. He shines during the scenes where he would interact with his father because they seem like two complete opposites on the surface. Tim Burton presents us once again with fascinating and enriching people and places. Although that is expected, despite the bright colours and visual effects, the message is always highlighted. This film got pretty much everything right. Although some may argue that it did not tie everything up together, I think it is more than okay because not every story is a tightly written literature.
Bigger, Stronger, Faster
★★★★ / ★★★★
“But in America, it seems like cheaters always prosper.” I know this is a very personal documentary by Chris Bell but he helmed this film in such a way that it gets better the deeper the audiences get into it. It starts off as a critique on American society where most people are willing to do anything to be the best. And then suddenly, it becomes about family values, body images of both youth and adults, childhood dreams, politics, what we’re willing (or not willing) to give up in our lives just so our loved ones can sleep a little better at night. I found this movie to be really scary but also very realistic. Just when I was convinced that, generally, steroids are okay (I am aware of its benefits in the medical field such as stereoids being a solution for muscular dystrophy), my perception is altered because it provides cases which argue that steroids are not okay (risk of suicide, adverse effects in our bodies, addiction). This picture contains a lot of footages that features George W. Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone… which sets up issues that concern us because of what is presented in the media: hard body/masculinity is good; soft body/femininity is bad. It was also interesting when the action figures from the ’60s, ’70s, ’80s were brought up and how their looks have changed. This film covered so much ground to the point where I thought it was so rich with information, I could discuss them all day. Some people may argue that it’s a sign of a lack of focus. I disagree because all of those seemingly disparate things connect to the overall picture: the role of perfomance-enhancing drugs in the United States. I consider this a very important film and it’s one of the best documentaries I’ve seen in 2008.
Big Lebowski, The (1998)
★★★ / ★★★★
I usually don’t like screwball comedies because the characters are stupid without any sort of redeeming qualities, the jokes are rude and sometimes mean-spirited, the story has no idea where to go, and I quickly get bored watching them because they fail to get me to think. Strangely enough, I enjoyed “The Big Lebowski,” written and directed by the Coen brothers, because of such qualities except for the fact that it is far from mean-spirited. Jeff Bridges stars as The Dude, whose real name was Jeffrey Lebowski, a guy who was mistaken by two miscreants as the millionaire Lebowski. Since the two didn’t get what they wanted from The Dude, one of them decided to pee on his carpet. What started off as a story about a slacker who wanted compensation for his carpet ended up being about a lot of things: a kidnapped woman (Tara Reid), an artist who had intentions of her own (Julianne Moore), nihilists who craved money, and the dynamics among bowling buddies (Steve Buscemi and John Goodman). All of such disparate elements came to together in a way that didn’t necessarily make sense–in fact, sometimes I had no idea what was going on–but it was very funny because each character was driven by well-defined motivations (no matter how strange they might have been). I did not expect this kind of movie from the Coen brothers because I’m more familiar with their thrillers (“No Country for Old Men,” “Blood Simple”) and dark comedies (“Intolerable Cruelty,” “Fargo”), but after watching the film I was glad that I got a taste of their lighter side. The only real complaint I had with this picture was it had no reason to run for almost two hours long. Somewhere after the half-way point, I began to wonder when it was going to be over because at that point it still did not try to put the pieces of the puzzle together. The characters were still too busy running around like children and it made me restless. Nevertheless, despite its flaws, I still enjoyed watching this movie because of the characters’ funny fixations and interesting mistaken identities. And considering I detest stoner comedies, I think it’s a solid accomplishment.
Billy the Kid (2007)
★★★ / ★★★★
A lot of critics really liked this documentary but a lot of casual moviegoers did not. I think it’s always a challenge watching a slice-of-life picture because most people will think about the movie’s purpose (even though there might not be one) to the point where they get distracted from the film altogether. For me, when I watch slice-of-life movies, I almost always relate them to my life; I learn to accept the inconsistencies of the story, the rough edges of direction, and the all too ordinary images. In a way, I treat it less like a movie and more like a diary, per se. And like a diary, this movie made me sad, laugh-out-loud and everything inbetween. There were times when the protagonist would say really awkward things to the point where I noticed myself squirming in my seat… And then I just start laughing because I was amazed by how engaged I am into this 15-year-old’s motivations and ways of thinking. What’s even better is that he’s funny but he doesn’t know that he’s being funny. I heard from a few sources that Billy was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome after the film was shot, which made sense because he’s a very smart kid (I love his references to films), but he’s very awkward socially. In a way, Billy reminded me of Heather Kuzmich of “America’s Next Top Model” Cycle 9. As for the documentary’s deeper moments, I was interested hearing about Billy’s family, specifically how his biological father treated his family back then, how some people get alarmed when Billy would check out books about serial killers, and the work he had to go through to potentially have his first girlfriend. Billy has a defined set of principles that makes him relatable and interesting. But I have to be honest: When I was in high school, Billy was the kind of person I avoided (I feel so mean now that I look back on it!) and thus not be friends with because I felt like they don’t know when to stop talking and respect other people’s space. So, in a way, this movie got to me; maybe I should’ve been more understanding because some people are so eager to make friends to the point where they seem like they’re trying too hard or they’re being fake. I got really sad when they showed Billy’s silent moments. Even though he has a great mom who supports him 100% and some friends he can talk to, I feel like he’s still alone. I can relate with that (and I think so do most people) and that’s why I found this movie to be truly genuine.
Birdcage, The
★★★ / ★★★★
All of the actors in this movie contributed something hilarious and that’s what makes it so special. A gay couple, Robin Williams and Nathan Lane, who owns a drag club must meet their son’s (Dan Futterman) politically conservative family (Gene Hackman and Dianne West) and fiancée (Calista Flockhart) for the first time over dinner. One can guess that pretty much everything goes awry. Even though I’m not particularly into films that only feature homosexuality in a feminine light, there’s something about this movie that made me smile and laugh out loud. It’s easy to tell that all of the actors are having fun with their characters because sometimes it would seem that certain actions or pop culture references are a wink to the audiences. I also consider it a good thing that the talented Mike Nichols, the director, features a subculture that is so often viewed in a negative light. In here, no one gets infected or dies of AIDS, no one gets jumped, and no one commits suicide. Everyone’s pretty much happy with themselves; it’s just that the circumstances require three characters to change the way they act even for just a couple of hours. I also loved Christine Baranski as Futterman’s biological morther. She’s spunky and smart even though she seems a bit cold and tough at first glance. The one thing that didn’t work for me was the pair of journalists hoping to get the latest exposée from the conservative family. I think if various reporters were featured, the film would’ve had more chances of making fun of different types of reporters with different methods of acquiring controversial information. Still, “The Birdcage” deserves a high recommendation because it works as a farce and a classic comedy of errors. You rarely go wrong with Nichols’ films because most of them have smart characters and witty dialogues. This one is no exception.
Black Book
★★★ / ★★★★
This is not your typical World War II movie about how Jewish people survived the Holocaust. This is more of a thriller than a drama picture, which made it more interesting. There’s an incredible number of plot twists that I didn’t see coming, which I must admit held my interest that much more. Still, this movie is two hours and twenty minutes long. At times it shows its audiences scenes that I don’t think are that important. With such a long running time, I don’t think a lot of people will be inspired to watch this movie even though it really does stand out. For a foreign film, I’m amazed at how well done it is: the props, the tone, the writing… everything. Like I said, the main (and only) problem I have about this movie is its running time. If it only lasted about forty minutes, I might have given it a four out of four stars.
Black Hawk Down
★★★ / ★★★★
Josh Hartnett is amazing in this movie. I believed him to be sympathetic and tough, one who believes in his country but is often placed in situations that maybe alters his principles just enough to create a complex character. There’s an excellent use of camera angles and sounds throughout the picture and I believed that I was right there in the action with the characters. The use of day and night when danger approaches is well done also. My only problem is that it could have been shorter since some scenes dragged on a bit.
Black Irish
★★ / ★★★★
Here’s another indie film that suffers from the Everyone Must be Depressed Syndrome. After all, it’s about an extremely dysfunctional family whose members are emotionally distant from one another. Michael Angarano plays the youngest of the McKay family and is surrounded by people he wants to look up to but are often disappointed with them: a father who keeps secrets and seems to have no positive outlook on life (Brendan Gleeson), a mother who cares too much about what other people would think so she guilts her children into doing the “right” thing (Melissa Leo), a brother who everyone gave up on because he can’t control his criminal proclivities (Tom Guiry), and a pregnant sister who wants to escape her family’s suffocating environment (Emily VanCamp). Even though each of the actor is featured and sewn into the big picture in some way, I felt like it was too forced. Stories about families must be organic because they have a natural connection to one another despite their idiosyncrasies. Angarano is really coming into his own; he’s come a long way from “The Brainiacs.com” and “Will & Grace.” Like in “Snow Angels,” he’s able to add layers and complexity to his character even though the movie is barely above mediocre. As for Guiry, I’m tired of seeing him as a damaged tough guy like in “The Mudge Boy.” Whatever happened to that nice harmless kid in “The Sandlot”? Even though I think he’s extremely talented, I think he’s repeating the same characters. I knew Emily VanCamp would have no problem with the dramatic scenes. Ever since “Everwood,” she proves to me time and again that she can look sad without trying. In essence, I felt that Guiry and VanCamp are merely cruising along and that really frustrates me because I know they can perform at a higher level. Perhaps they could have done so if the writing and direction (both credits go to Brad Gann) are sharper. Since this is Gann’s directoral debut, clichés tend to pile up on one another. But the nice thing about this movie is that it offers the characters some kind of hope at the end of the tunnel. Even though that hope is somewhat bittersweet, it’s what the characters desperately needed (so did the audiences). I also liked the fact that not everything in the film is solved because it gives the picture some sort of realism. I’m not against recommending this film because it does have some memorable scenes. But I’m not going to enthusiastically recommend it either because it has the kind of story that has been featured by better films.
Black Sheep (2006)
★★★ / ★★★★
This movie is genius because it is able to make generally harmless sheep as dangerous as those ravenous zombies in “28 Days Later.” Even though it’s more comedic than horrific, the film is clever not just in its title but also in its way of telling the story. I think this is perfect for those who are too scared of “real” horror movies because there are a lot of genuinely funny scenes, but it won’t leave out the horror fans because it has plenty of gore. I shouldn’t have watched this while I was eating because some scenes are so gruesome to the point where I wanted to throw up. Nathan Meister is great as the “black sheep” of the family who went to live in the city after his father’s accident, leaving his brother (Peter Feeney) to take care of the farm. Over the years, Meister developed an unhealthy fear of sheep but chooses to return to the farm to find some sort of closure (according to his therapist). Things go horribly wrong when Danielle Mason’s character and her friend try to steal a biohazardous material from the farm’s laboratory. Teaming up Meister and Mason was a smart move because they do have some sort of chemistry even though they don’t realize it. Mason is hilarious as the activist who doesn’t eat meat and yet is plunged into a world of tearing up flesh and blood squirting out all over the place. It’s irony in its most obvious, but at the same time, in its finest. In some scenes, I noticed some of this film’s influences: “An American Werewolf in London” during the transformation scenes and “Night of the Living Dead” because of its story and the film is set in a farm in the middle of nowhere. I recommend this especially to those people who are into cult films. This picture is not meant to be taken seriously (it’s about sheep zombies, for heaven’s sake!), but it does have implications about how we treat animals, the environment, and each other.
Black Snake Moan
★★★ / ★★★★
As strange as this film is, it’s ultimately a story about redemption. There’s something beautiful about the uneveness of this movie: the first twenty minutes are focused, the middle doesn’t know where to go, and the last twenty minutes regained its focus and offered something a little extra–something touching and real. I think this is one of my favorite roles of Christina Ricci: she’s a sex addict at first glance but we see her evolve until the last frame. Samuel L. Jackson is complex, to say the least, and every time he refers to the Bible, I think of his speech on “Pulp Fiction.” Just when you think he’s going to take his character one way, he takes it in the opposite direction and it feels refreshing. Justin Timberlake surprised me again like he did in “Alpha Dog.” Just when I thought he’d be the weakest link in the film, he more than held his own again A-list actors like Ricci and Jackson. There were a few highlights in the picture: Ricci’s “agony” on the grass when Timberlake left to serve in the war, when Ricci realizes that Jackson has tied a chain around her, when Jackson sings the blues while Ricci seductively dances in a pub, and when Jackson and Ricci made music together. Those scenes are so memorable, it makes up for most of the film’s shortcomings. Still, this is a very different movie so I can’t recommend this to just about anyone. It requires close viewing because some of the changes that the characters go through are shown in a subtle (and sometimes frustrating) manner.
Blades of Glory
★★★ / ★★★★
It was better than I thought it would be. Sure, I’ve seen movies about rivals ending up working together in order to win a championship but what I haven’t seen is that formula working in an ice-skating competition. Also, I’m not that big of a fan of Will Ferrell and Jon Heder so me liking this movie says a lot. The highlight of this film was the finale when they had to perform a really complex move and when Ferrell was singing on the treadmill. It was so funny! If it wasn’t for Ferrell and Heder’s comic timing, this film would’ve been an utter disaster. It was also a good decision to make this film as short as possible. The middle digressed a bit but otherwise it’s quite entertaining.
Blindness (2008)
★★ / ★★★★
I think a lot of critics and audiences alike have been way harsh on this film. I concur that this picture is not easy to swallow and digest since most of the story took place in one area. It definitely got suffocating because the audiences are subjected to see the same place for about an hour and fifteen minutes (the middle portion); the only things that changed are the increasingly disgusting living conditions of the blind and the dynamics among the wards. Mark Ruffalo and Julianne Moore lead one of the wards, a doctor and a doctor’s wife, one lost his sight and the other one kept her sight (though it must be kept a secret), respectively. It was interesting to watch their relationship change as the film went on because Ruffalo depended on his wife regarding pretty much everything. There was a brilliant scene when Ruffalo talked to Moore about not seeing her the same after she feeds him, bathes him, and cleans him up in ways that a nurse or mother normally does. There was this undeniable tension between them but at the same time they must stay together because everything around them is falling apart. I thought it was interesting how Fernando Meirelles, the director, chose to tell the story. In the first few scenes, we focus on this one man who suddenly goes blind in the middle of traffic (Yusuke Iseya) and slowly transition to other people suddenly going blind to the point where it becomes an epidemic. The epidemic and ravaged city reminded me of “28 Days Later” and “28 Weeks Later,” only instead of zombies roaming the streets, it’s blind individuals. I also liked the slightly hopeful ending because the suffering was not entirely for naught. Still, by the end of the picture, I still wanted to know the source of the epidemic. That lack of explanation somewhat got to me (and I imagine as most people would). I don’t deny the fact that I saw some hints of great filmmaking here such as the stark contrast between certain images in the beginning and the end of the movie. I also liked the “Lord of the Flies” element in the quarantine zone when everyone had to decide who would get how much food, who the leader should be and who would emerge victorious between the wards. I’ve never seen Gael García Bernal so immoral so his character definitely took me by surprise. With a little bit more explanation and less saggy middle portion, this would’ve been a much powerful film. The acting was already really good and there were scenes that really tugged at my heartstrings. See this if you’re curious and hopefully you’ll see what I see in it: potential.
Blood Diamond
★★★ / ★★★★
A lot of people hyped this film up for me so I had a lot of expectations prior to seeing it. I am happy to report that it did live up to my expectations. Even though I think it was a bit too long, the story kept me interested due to its moving scenes and the characters’ interactions. Leonardo DiCaprio and Djimon Hounsou shine as they portrayed two characters with very different incentives and later on developed an unlikely bond. The film also made me see diamonds in a different way. Prior to purchasing one, I’ll definitely think twice whether to do it or not (most likely my decision will be the latter after seeing this movie). This is the kind of cinematic experience that I will remember for a long time, like “Hotel Rwanda,” because of the violence and the government’s role in people’s lives. Even though it’s not a masterpiece, I will always regard this film highly.
Blood Simple (1984)
★★★★ / ★★★★
“Blood Simple,” directed by Joel Coen and written by the Coen brothers, is my definition of a great film. From start to finish, I was absolutely blown away because of its ability to take a genre on its head and create something truly original, or at least a breath of fresh air. Labeling this picture as a thriller may not do it justice because it contained darkly comedic scenes, horrific montages, and touching moments. To be released in 1984 and still remain that great to this day is an achievement that most pictures do not quite accomplish.
Marty (Dan Hedaya) hires a private investigator named Loren (M. Emmet Walsh) to observe his wife Abby (Frances McDormand) having an affair with Ray (John Getz), a man who works in Marty’s bar. Driven to extreme jealousy and heartbreak, Marty eventually orders Loren to kill the new couple for $10,000. Little did Marty know that Loren is a calculating, risk-avoidant man and that he has a plan on his own to get the money without killing Abby and Ray. A series of strange coincidences and assumptions are added to the seemingly simple equation which eventually makes a stylish film that is able to bring up moral questions, as well as what a person is willing to do to get away with something–whether that something is to benefit one’s self or others.
First of all, I have to commend all of the four leads because I felt like they each brought something special to the table. Each of their character was multi-layered in his or her way to the point where I did not know how they would react to certain situations when certain variables were changed. Each of them was intelligent, capable of good and evil, and has a good sense on how to survive when faced with certain challenges. This being a thriller film, I knew that not all of them would survive by the end. But the interesting part was trying to figure out who would outsmart who; it was kind of like watching sharks battle it out in order to ultimately be on the top of the food chain. I must also give recognition to the Coen brothers, especially Joel, for giving the audiences one memorable scene after another. While the conversations were smart, Joel Coen was able to use colors and sound to maximize the effect of certain scenes. In most thrillers of today, the soundtrack could get so distracting that it tends to take away the power of simply observing a character move in silence. Like a good novel, the use of foreshadowing was implemented in just about the right moments so when we actually get to the crucial scene, we are swept off our feet without feeling cheated. Lastly, I mention the genre-defying tone of the movie. There were some genuinely funny moments sprinkled throughout but there were also some that left me cowering in a corner and wondering what I would have done if I was placed in the same position. The last thirty minutes or so were post-noir (arguably my favorite subgrenre) in its core and I relished every second of it because it was so well done.
I wish I had seen this film sooner. When I saw “Fargo,” I thought the Coen brothers would not be able to top it even if “No Country for Old Men” came quite close. However, having seen “Blood Simple,” I think it is possibly my favorite of the movies by them so far. I’ve seen a great number of fascinating motion pictures but I think this one deserves to be at least in my top twenty. The dripping ironies were just too impressive to resist (pun intended).
Blossoming of Maximo Oliveros, The
★★ / ★★★★
This critically acclaimed Filipino film about a flamoboyant gay twelve-year-old (Nathan Lopez) who happens to develop a serious crush on a cop (J.R. Valentin) both impresses and disappoints. The conflict comes in when the cop finds out that Max’ family is involved in several crimes that range from theft to murder. I liked that this picture did not flinch when it comes to showing the poorer neighborhoods in the Philippines. While the living conditions are cramped, it still manages to show that most people are generally happy with where they are because things can get a lot worse. Having been raised in the Philippines for the first eleven years of my life, I found this film’s perspective to be accurate yet bona fide because it still manages to respect its subjects. It’s easy to look down upon a group of people if you don’t truly understand them. Another aspect I enjoyed about it was that Max being really queer was really not a big deal to most people. What I love about the Philippines and Filipinos in general is that it’s pretty easy for them to accept others who are different from the norm as long as they find a common bond. When I was growing up in the Philippines, I didn’t see a lot of LGBT celebrities on television. But nowadays, if you tune in on TFC (a cable set that people can subscribe to so they can watch Filipino programs all over the world), it’s difficult NOT to see gays and lesbians. In fact, they tend to be the most entertaining hosts on game shows or characters on soap operas. So I’m glad that this movie reflected the current realities in Filipino society. However, there were some things about the picture that disappointed me. Instead of truly exploring the non-sexual relationship between Lopez and Valentin, it delved too much into the politics of cops and criminals to the point where it took the focus away from Lopez’ interesting character. I wanted to know more about the lead character and his relationship with his accepting family (no matter how dysfunctional they may be). I also didn’t enjoy the overly melodramatic scenes. Perhaps it’s because I expected more comedy because of the trailer. Nevertheless, I’m giving this a slight recommendation because it’s strong in many aspects. It’s just that the very (but important) negatives kind of weighed down most of it.
Blue (1993)
★★★ / ★★★★
I think this film is very mysterious. Writer and director Krzysztof Kieslowski tells the story of Julie Vignon (played by the exquisite Juliette Binoche) who survived a car crash as her husband and daughter perished. After trying to commit suicide, she decides to sever everything from her past life and start over. Upon introspection, she realizes that the only way she can achieve true liberty from the past is to embrace it. I can understand why a lot of people would completely dismiss this film after one viewing. Perhaps the most common complaint is that the story unfolds too slowly. I personally didn’t find that a problem because of the way Binoche carried her character from beginning to end. Her frustrations range from obvious to subtle. I thought there were two stand-out scenes: when Binoche decides to eat the candy that belonged to her late daughter (and the manner of which she ate it) and when she discovered a mouse taking care of its babies. Those two scenes defined this film because metaphor is one of the most crucial factors that drove the story forward. Nothing may be going on at first glance but when one really looks at Binoche’s subtle facial expressions and body language, one will come to the conclusion that she’s going through an inner turmoil that cannot be mollified with words like “I’m sorry.” I also found this film to be very technical. The use of color is outstanding because it tells the audience how a character is feeling or what the character might be thinking. As for the music, the movie becomes that much more alive whenever the orchestra would play on the background. The colors and music work together to highlight certain emotions that Binoche is going through. This is the first part of an ambitious trilogy and I’m excited to see what the second and third films have to offer.
Bobby (2006)
★★ / ★★★★
I thought this movie was mainly about the assassination of U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy so I was really frustrated an hour into the movie because nothing made any sense. Everything somewhat comes together in the end so I was glad that I did not completely waste my time. Still, there is nothing much here except for nondescript dialogues about racism, committing into a relationship despite the absence of love, frustration of a certain celebrity… I could go on and on and it would still sound boring. This movie is a little too long for its own good. The people I saw this with grew restless as soon as it had started; I could withstand a lot but it just doesn’t have enough to offer. It’s a lame attempt to feature the people who were shot during the assassination. Even though each featured victim got a reasonable amount of screen time, I feel like I did not fully understand their motivations and actions. I feel like there’s a huge gap in the center of it all where the heart should have been.
Body of Lies
★★ / ★★★★
I expected a lot from this film because of three reaons: Ridley Scott’s direction, Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe teaming up, and its storyline regarding spies. Even though Scott’s movies generally do not have riveting ideas, he manages to entertain by playing with the fluidity of his characters’ morals and motivations. In this picture, it’s no different because he constantly manipulates the dynamics between the characters–mainly their loyalties–to the point where at times I wondered about the characters’ true intentions. The side effect of certain twists, however, left me confused. At times I didn’t know why a character is doing whatever he is doing for about ten to fifteen minutes. It wasn’t a good feeling; I felt like I was on the outside instead of feeling involved. I wish DiCaprio and Crowe had more screen time together. The movie actually popped during the (too few) scenes when they were facing each other, measuring each other’s abilities. I got tired of the scenes when the two of them would argue over the phone. Why do all that if they can be on the field together? As for the spy storyline, I’m glad the setting was in the Middle East not that because it’s accurate but because it’s relevant to the war in some way. This film is based on the novel by David Ignatius but I haven’t read the book so I don’t know how often this movie followed that literature. I also have to commend Mark Strong as the head of the Jordanian intelligence. I think he’s one of the most interesting actors to watch because he has his own intentions and he’s not willing to sacrifice his reputation for the sake of giving and receiving favors to and from the CIA. I also liked Golshifteh Farahani as DiCaprio’s romantic interest. Even though that romance angle did not work for me, I liked watching her because she has subtlety. This is far from a perfect film but it could’ve been leaner and meaner with a few more revisions in the script and cutting it down to about an hour and forty minutes. For the sake of entertainment and old-fashioned thrillers, this gets a slight recommendation from me.
Bolt
★★★★ / ★★★★
I’m surprised how fun this movie was considering it’s not made by Pixar. From beginning to end, it was able to provide its audiences unabashed cuteness, genuine laughter, and heart. All of the components of the film seemed to fit together like an intricate but highly rewarding puzzle. The voices of Bolt (John Travolta) and Penny (Miley Cyrus) are recognizable but never distracting; the soundtrack in each momentous scene manages to touch the right emotions; the jokes are wide-ranging (considering it comments on the inner-workings of Hollywood) but never out-of-place; and the story offers something for kids, adults, and everything inbetween. Not to mention the supporting characters, Mittens (Susie Essman) and Rhino (Mark Walton), are as interesting as the main characters. What made this film that much more enjoyable and interesting for me was its references to spy films and television shows, movies like “The Truman Show,” “Superman,” and “Finding Nemo,” and its focused theme of losing one’s innocence via going on an adventure (the symbolism regarding Bolt’s black thunder on his white fur is both simple and thoughtful). The lessons about friendship and the balance between self-reliance and evaluating the right time to ask for help were never hammered into the viewers’ heads. This is the first feature film that I saw in 3-D and I was nothing short of amazed. Even though it may not be necessary, it definitely enhances one’s viewing experience. I highly recommend “Bolt” and even go as far to say that it should be nominated for an Oscar. Even though it’s not as exemplary as “WALL-E,” it’s just as fun to watch because it’s creative, highly energetic, and it makes one feel good even after the credits finish rolling.
Bonnie and Clyde (1967)
★★★★ / ★★★★
Two charismatic strangers named Bonnie (Faye Dunaway) and Clyde (Warren Beatty) teamed up and decided to rob banks in the Depression-era 1930s. Their adventures eventually led them to take in other people including C.W. Moss (Michael J. Pollard), Buck Barrow (Gene Hackman), and Blanche Barrow (Estelle Parsons). I’ve heard a lot about this movie via references from other pictures and television shows so I expected a lot from it. I have to say that it more than impressed because although it was initially about criminals who simply wanted some sort of excitement in their lives, we eventually really got to know them such as how they felt toward each other, their own insecurities and their realization that they wanted to leave the life of crime and start over. In under two hours, Arthur Penn, the director was able to helm a movie with sympathetic characters (when they shouldn’t be because they’ve killed people, especially considering when the film was released) and come full circle when it comes to the story. I also liked the dialogue and the passion in the body language of the actors, notably Dunaway. At times, I would pay attention more on what she was doing instead of what she was saying–something that I often catch myself doing when I’m conversing with someone. So I consider that a very good thing because it means she’s established a bridge between the character and the audience. Lastly, I enjoyed that this picture tried to be more than a series of action sequences. It actually had humor–especially when Gene Wilder appeared on screen–and real dramatic weight, which adds another layer to its substance. I think “Bonnie and Clyde” is rightfully considered as one of the greatest American films because even though it was undoubtedly violent, it really was more about the drama in wanting to escape situations with increasing amount of gravity. Pretty much every minute was efficient and I was fascinated with what was going to happen with the characters even though I knew of their fates. If one hasn’t seen “Bonnie and Clyde,” one should make it a priority. My only regret is that I hadn’t seen it sooner.
Bottle Rocket
★★ / ★★★★
Like “The Life Aquatic of Steve Zissou,” I don’t know how to feel about this movie. At times it’s funny but sometimes it’s just plain boring. A lot of the motel scenes could’ve been cut out. When the film was about to reach its end, I didn’t care what happened to the characters because I felt like I was sitting through a bad two and a half hour movie. The best thing about this movie is its script. The dialogue is crisp and witty. The Wilson brothers have good chemistry. Other than that, it has pretty much nothing going for it. The dry humour they have here is lackadaisical. Granted, it’s one of Wes Anderson’s first films so I decided to give this film a break. I don’t hate it, I just somewhat don’t prefer to watch it again.
Bottle Shock (2008)
★★ / ★★★★
I decided to watch this movie because I was interested to learn more about one of the landmarks of the wine industry (even though I don’t know much about wine). That is, the creation of the perfect Chateau Montelena chardonnay. Alan Rickman stars as Steven Spurrier, the owner of Academie du Vin, who traveled to the United States in order to collect wine for the Judgment of Paris wine competition. One of the places he visited was Chateau Montelena which was owned by Jim Barrett (Bill Pullman), a man who was buried in loans and frustration with the fact that his son (Chris Pine) failed to show interest or enthusiasm when it came to the family business. The weaker and less interesting part of the film was the romance triangle among a Hispanic worker (Freddy Rodriguez) in Chateau Montelena, a new intern (Rachael Taylor), and Jim’s aimless son. Another negative was that even though the story was supposed to be set in 1976, it didn’t feel like it was because of both the actors and the script. That sense of authenticity was important to me because I really wanted to be sucked into the time period. I also felt as though the picture played everything a bit too safe. With each scene everything just felt nice and breezy instead of revolutionary, which is a problem because the core of the movie was how the events in the vineyard impacted the wine industry. Randall Miller, the director, should have taken more risks instead of resting on the romance between the three younger characters. In fact, I think the movie would’ve been better off if about thirty minutes were cut off because it would have been more focused and the pace wouldn’t have felt as slow. Still, I don’t consider “Bottle Shock” a bad movie because there were moments of true wonder for the audiences, especially when the wine suddenly changed from clear to brown. I had no idea whether that was a positive or a negative thing prior so I certainly learned something from the film. And the exciting competition scene was quite amusing because the French judges tried so hard to discern which wines were from France and which ones were from the United States. The looks on their faces after the competition was priceless.
Bourne Identity, The
★★★★ / ★★★★
Engaging in every way, this is my idea of an adrenaline-fueled escapism at its best. With only three movies out, I think this matched the best installments of the “James Bond” franchise. “Identity” set up the mystery that ran in the veins of the other two and the film did so with such grace. From its opening sequence, Matt Damon convinced us that he is Jason Bourne–even though he turns out to be an assassin, the audience still care for and identify with him. That’s hard to achieve. There are a lot of classic scenes in this movie. My favourite has got to be the silent but deadly duel between Matt Damon and Clive Owen near the end of the film. It was done with such focus and intelligence to the point where I was weak at the end of it. It’s funny because silent moments are the strong points of the “Bourne” series yet it is an action-thriller film. It’s ironic because action films strive to be loud, with guns and grenades going off all over the place. The “Bourne” series is humble and quiet… yet manages to throw powerful punches. Matt Damon is known in films like the “Ocean’s” franchise and “Good Will Hunting.” But I will always, always define him as Jason Bourne, the charismatic assassin in search for the truth regarding his identity.
Bourne Supremacy, The
★★★★ / ★★★★
A lot of folks were turned off by this installment’s unstable camera technique. I thought it was another dash of brilliance because it matches the film’s kinetic storyline. Matt Damon is back as Jason Bourne, angrier and more astute as ever. While this film serves as the transition between the (brilliant) first to the (magnificient) third installment, this one deserves some merit. If I had to pick which one is the weakest of the three, this would be it. Nonethless, it’s a four-star film because it managed to progress the story, find a decent footing regarding its tone, and the action sequences are bigger, more exciting. The classic, really complex car chase scene near the end of the film is nothing short of perfection. I felt like I was right there next to Jason Bourne. This entire franchise truly revived the tried-and-true action flicks that’s gotten stale. It’s my favourite spy trilogy. If there happens to be a fourth one, I would be more than willing to embrace it.
Bourne Ultimatum, The
★★★★ / ★★★★
Jason Bourne pulled a Sydney Bristow. For the fans of the great show called “Alias,” you’ll know what I’m talking about. If not, that’s okay. All the more reason for you to see it. Although I predicted that something like that happened to Bourne, it remains extraordinarily exciting. No one is safe in this supposed final installment. I am immensely glad they had the bravado to kill off a potential main character in the first few scenes, not to mention put Julia Stiles’ beloved character in an unimaginable danger in the roofs. It was so exhilirating, I got numb and shaken at several points throughout the film. The assassins are deadlier, the hand-to-hand combats more real, and the car chases at its best. Not to mention desperation is in the air as characters switch from one side to another in search for the truth. I can only hope they make a fourth movie in the future–I can’t get enough of Jason Bourne! For me, “The Bourne” series has revolutionized the spy-thriller genre in so many levels. Which one is the best “Bourne” movie? All of them. They’re unique in their own way. This one expertly used flashbacks, past dialogues, scenes, character foils, and similar situations that happened in the past two movies. It was eerie yet it provides some form of closure. It reminded me of the last season of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” It is officially my favourite film series of all time, right next to “Indiana Jones.” “The Bourne Ultimatum” is THE best movie of summer 2007.
Bowling for Columbine
★★★★ / ★★★★
I have forgotten how much this film impacted me emotionally the first time I saw it. Watching the actual footages from Columbine was as disturbing the second time around. It still brings tears to my eyes whenever I hear those phone calls from students and teachers as they asked for help. Some people say that Michael Moore is all about theatrics. Well, I think his approach is valid because, to be honest, I don’t think a lot of people are moved enough by just mere tried and true facts. Sometimes, you have to push it a bit more, go well beyond the boundaries to get your message across. In this violence-ridden America we live in, a simple presentation is not enough to get people to pay attention. I admire Moore’s strategies because a lot of documentaries are afraid to be bold, afraid to be hated by critics. After absorbing this film, my support for gun control is stronger than ever. It also makes you wonder about one the constitutions regarding the right to bear arms. Is the constitution talking about the militia or the individual? Why is it that the United States contain the highest mortality rate compared to any nation in the world? There must be something different about us. Not knowing what it is is daunting in itself.
Boy A
★★★ / ★★★★
Originally a novel written by Jonathan Trigell, this feature film directed by John Crowley is ultimately about about rehabilitation and redemption. Even though it’s more focused on the rehabilitation outside of a facility, I think it’s more interesting because it also manages to tackle the philosophical question of others’ knowledge (and lack thereof) of a particular event in one’s life–how that knowledge can change the way they think and act around the person of controversy. Andrew Garfield does an amazing job as Jack Burridge who was sentenced to jail as a child because of a murder he committed. With the help of Peter Mullan’s character who is like a father figure to Jack, Jack is given the chance to reintegrate into a society that he left (or of which that left him?). Garfield, within the first five minutes, proved to me that he truly regrets the past and wants to lead a normal life again. He has that childlike quality that is extremely charming, but at the same time there are moments in the film that shows the audience that the evil inside him–which most likely resides within us as well–is not fully expunged despite his best efforts. Garfield gives us a really complex character study; how a person that is continually challenged and reminded of his past reaches some sort of breaking point even though many things are seemingly going in the right direction. Another stand-out performance is from Katie Lyons as Garfield’s girlfriend. She’s strong and spunky, determined and a bit over-the-top–which is a perfect fit for Garfield because he tries to dim his light since he doesn’t want to get much (positive and negative) attention from people. Some of the highlights in the film include Garfield’s dance when he was under the influence of ecstasy (I thought that was kind sexy), Garfield and Lyons’ intimate conversations, and the final scene. The last scene blew me away because it was so powerful when it comes to engaging the audience. The film’s strength and downfall were the flashback scenes. Even though those scenes are necessary to explain what happened in the past and they were placed in the right moments in the film, the flashbacks brought up new questions that weren’t really answered in the end. Perhaps if one read the novel, the answers would be clearer but those that did not might be a bit confused. Still, this is a very good movie that gathers momentum as it goes on and doesn’t break its spell until after the exemplary last scene. This is a thinking person’s movie because it essentially comments on (and even questions) human psychology. It is also the kind of film that ignites discussion.
Boy Crush (2007)
★★ / ★★★★
“Boy Crush” consists seven short films about homosexuality: “Summer” (Hong Khaou), “Night Swimming” (Daniel Falcone), “Running Without Sound” (Judd King), “Out Now” (Sven J. Matten), “The Bridge” (George Barbakadze), “Hitchcocked” (David M. Young), and “Oedipe” (Eric Rognard). I’m not going to review every one of them, but I will instead mention the highlights. Out of the seven stories, about two or three worked for me (“Summer,” “Night Swimming,” “Running Without Sound”) because they had some sort of an emotional resonance after I’ve seen them. Without a doubt, the short film from King was the best because it was able say so much without using so many words. The extended scene toward the end when the two teenagers lingered in front of each other, doubtful of whether or not to make a move to finally kiss, said a lot about their insecurities and how much it pained them that they could not express how they truly felt about themselves and each other. The situation didn’t help with the fact that one of them was deaf but the other was not. I almost wished that the six others were not in the movie and that King’s feature was a full length film. Unlike the remaining four, the first three are not about sex or lusting over someone physically. It’s about making that genuine human connection, homosexual or not, to reach some sort of acceptance or understanding. For me, “Running Without Sound” embodied all sorts of insights I needed in a movie to be truly be considered profound–short film or otherwise. I’m giving this collection of short flicks a mediocre rating because there was a lack of a recurring theme. The last one was actually science fiction and I was totally confused. If “Boy Crush” had gathered short movies about human connection instead of poking fun of things like rape in prison and AIDS (such as in “Hitchcocked”), this would have been a stronger package (pardon the pun). In the meantime, if you want to be efficient or are concerned with limited time, do yourself a favor and watch the first three and ignore the others.
Boy Culture
★★★ / ★★★★
This surprised me because it looks like a typical indie LGBT movie but it manages to rise above its clichés and tell a meaningful story about three roommates who genuinely love each other despite their differences. Derek Magyar is a male hustler who is self-deprecating but sensitive, Darryl Stephens wants to sleep around more but is anxious whenever he has to visit his family because they are not aware of his sexuality, and Jonathon Trent is pretty much like Magyar and Stephens’ kid because they took him in when he has nowhere else to go. The way this film played with the dynamics of the three characters made me care for them at their worst and laugh along with them when whenever they’re put in awkward or embarrassing situations. There are barely any sex scenes, a quality I like in LGBT films, because the focus is more on the characters’ emotional motivations than their physical yearnings. It’s very easy to shed one’s clothes but very difficult to shed one’s soul. As for the hustling aspect, I didn’t care much about it except for when Magyar’s most recent customer told his story regarding his first love. Those moments were touching because Magyar learns from an older person and applies the story and its lessons to his own life. Even though the characters do stupid things sometimes (like most people), they’re smart in their own way and insightful when they need to be. With a higher budget, I think this would’ve been something better because the script is already interesting. I applaud Q. Allan Broca (who also wrote and directed the hilarious “Eating Out”) because he was able to shape the story into something that the audience can really connect with.
Boy in the Striped Pajamas, The (2008)
★★★ / ★★★★
This film was told in the eyes of an eight-year-old boy named Bruno (Asa Butterfield) who likes to explore his surroundings and play with other children. One day, his family decides to move from Berlin to a remote place in Poland because his father (David Thewlis) is a Nazi soldier and he is promoted there by the higher ranks. Bruno, being unaware of the horrors that the Jews are going through, assumes that the concentration camp that he can see from his bedroom is a farm. He also takes notice of the people there and tells his mother (Vera Farmiga) that he thinks they are quite strange because they wear pajamas all day. As a young explorer, he eventually visits the concentration camp and meets another eight-year-old boy named Shmuel (Jack Scanlon) and the two become friends. I liked that this picture was told from the eyes of young person who didn’t know anything about what was going on around him. While his mistaken assumptions were amusing at times, it was very sad in its core because little by little his innocence got stripped away. I liked the scenes when the private tutor would teach Bruno and his sister (Amber Beattie) how to think like Nazi and labeled Jewish people as “evil” (among other things). Such scenes showed two crucial reactions from the children: the sister’s total acceptance of the Nazi ways to the point where she started putting up clippings and posters on her wall; and Bruno’s as he tried to resist what he was being told by asking questions such as if there were nice Jewish people. Since this was aimed as a children’s story, it was important for me to see how Bruno processed the varying information that was being presented to him by his strict Nazi father, his mother who was having a breakdown after finding out a secret that her husband kept from her, his patriotic but ultimately deluded sister, and his Jewish friend who was clearly miserable. And I did see and feel his confusion and frustration about what people have told him and his own experiences. As for the ending, it completely took me by surprise. But I suppose the director (Mark Herman) did a good job building up the tension that led to the conclusion. This film provided a nice change from other Holocaust pictures. If the fact that all of the characters spoke in English instead of German does not bother you, this is a pretty good find.
Boys from Brazil, The
★★★ / ★★★★
I heard about this film in several of my Biology classes so I thought I’d check it out. Gregory Peck as Dr. Josef Mengel stars as a Nazi scientist with an evil plan: assassinate ninety-four sixty-five-year-old men in a span of two-and-a-half years. Believe it or not, that is only the first step of his much more menacing endgame. Sir Laurence Olivier is the Nazi hunter who tries to stop Dr. Mengel after hearing about it from a young Nazi seeker played by Steve Guttenberg. Watching Peck and Olivier interact, especially during the final scenes, was a pleasure to watch. They both have such power in the way they deliver their lines yet still have that subtetly that makes the audiences question whether what they see is really the entire picture. The way Franklin J. Schaffner, the director, told the story reminded me of the best spy films I’ve seen. He managed to build the suspense after each scene but at the same time still have minor payoffs to keep the viewer engaged. I thought this film had three standout scenes: when Guttenberg learns the information that the Nazis are planning (it reminded me of “Alias” when Jennifer Garner would drop in a conversation she wasn’t meant to hear), when Olivier learns about the science that goes behind the Nazis endgame (the science is completely believable which made it all the more impressive), and one of the last scene involving the dogs (which I thought was deeply symbolic). Those three scenes alone convinced me that this film should be seen by many. Although there wasn’t as much gun-wielding action scenes as I would’ve liked, the characters are shrewd and the plot was intelligently written with genuine moments of comedy dispersed along the way.
Brüno (2009)
★★★ / ★★★★
I think people’s claims that this movie was “provocative,” “unnecessary,” and “crude” should pass as compliments because it was what Sacha Baron Cohen (as the lead character) wanted to achieve. Directed by Larry Charles, the picture tells the story of the recently fired Austrian television reporter named Brüno and his aspiration to become the most popular Austrian since Hitler (his own words). In his quest to achieve his dream, he visits celebrities and politicians for interviews ranging from Paula Abdul, Harrison Ford, to Ron Paul. He also had the bravado to visit the Middle East and interview two men from extreme political parties currently at war with each other; not to mention visiting the home of a terrorist and throwing insults like he was asking to get hurt. If those weren’t enough, he also ended up going to a swingers party, to Alabama in the middle of nowhere, and to a group of people who “converted” homosexuals into heterosexuals. And believe it or not, there were still a handful of things that I haven’t mentioned. Not everyone gets satire. This film satirizes the fashion industry, celebrities from behind the cameras as well as those in the focus of the tabloids, to the very same people who choose to become mindless drones of the television, trying to shape their lives into what’s currently “in” or “hip.” I also liked the fact that it made fun of people who claim to know what they’re talking about when they really don’t (that scene with the two blondes was a riot) and it critiques overbearing parents who desperately push their children to superstardom no matter what the cost. If one really looks into it, there’s a certain thought that was put under the farcical (and downright hilarious) façade that it tries to market. In a way, this movie holds up a mirror to the American society and the very same people who react negatively toward the movie without strong, well thought out reasons are the ones who are being made fun of. And the funnier (or more tragic) thing is, they know it’s all true. The second half was more about Brüno’s homosexuality and how people in less liberal (to say the least) people in America reacts to it. Yes, the character is extreme but I doubt the reactions of such people would have varied that much differently if he wasn’t as “flaming.” At the end of the day, ignorance is ignorance and hatred is hatred. I had a really good time watching this film despite its flaws because it has a certain sharpness to it that I couldn’t help but admire. People say “Boycott this!” or “This should be rated NC-17!” All I can say is that they need to watch more movies and smarten up a bit.
Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992)
★★★ / ★★★★
Gary Oldman stars as Count Dracula, a man who found his love named Elisabeta (Winona Ryder) died after he arrived from the war. The priests did not want to give Elisabeta a proper burial because she committed suicide. This angered Dracula, denounced God and was cursed to live for eternity lusting for blood. Hundreds of years later, Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) was assigned to help Dracula to buy some property in London unknowing of the vampire’s true intentions. Eventually, Dracula set his sights on Harker’s wife (also played by Ryder) because she looked exactly like his former lover and Dr. Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins) stepped in to help. I’m not entirely convinced on whether to recommend this picture. While I did find the asthetics magnificent and the execution of the story to be just fine, some crucial elements did not meet my expectations. I thought it sacrificed a lot of the terror for the sake of romance. When I watch a movie about Dracula, I expect to be suspended in suspense instead of watching him yearn over a lover. I thought the best scenes in the film were in the first half. There was something extremely creepy about the whole vibe of the castle when Jonathan visited Dracula in Transylvania. Every shadow and dark corner of the room felt menacing as if something seriously wrong was about to happen. The soundtrack was used sparingly so that the audiences could hear every creak and footstep made in the castle. The second half of the movie felt exactly the opposite. There were overt sexual references, consistent loud noises and the pacing became static. While it still remained elegant, I began to feel more apathetic toward each character when I should have been rooting for them because lives were at stake. Regardless of its flaws, I was still curious on what was going to happen next because Francis Ford Coppola, the director, had interesting techniques when it came to presenting his audiences gothic imagery. Coppola spent too much of his time with the images and asthetics of the picture that he somewhat neglected his characters and where the story was going. I’m not sure how closely this followed Bram Stoker’s original 1897 novel because I haven’t read it. But I must say that it definitely took me back to that time period. So in terms of escapism, I think this movie did a good job. However, when I try to really analyze it piece by piece, I’m not that impressed with it. It’s the strangest feeling.
Brand Upon the Brain!
★★★ / ★★★★
The only movie I’ve seen from Guy Maddin so far was “The Saddest Music in the World” back in 2003 and I thought that was really weird. “Brain Upon the Brain!” is on an entirely different level. Even though this film may seem to be about everything–from homosexuality/bisexuality, child abuse, incest, voodoo, quest for identity, to the dangers (and madness) of science–when one takes the time to step back and tries to figure out the commonality among such disparate subjects, one will conclude that it’s basically about childhood memories. But what Maddin does different is straying as far away from Hollywood and totally embracing surrealism mixed with the strangest images of the imagination. Even though I didn’t understand everything in the story, I was with it pretty much the whole time because I’ve never seen anything like it. Despite its strange way of telling the story, I could tell that this project is very personal and I wanted to know which parts of it actually happened to Guy Maddin (since the main character is named after him played by Sullivan Brown as the younger version and Erik Steffen Maahs as the older version). I liked that the story was told in a silent movie technique because it makes the film look and feel more mysterious. The love triangle between Brown, Maya Lawson, and Katherine E. Scharhon reminded me of the noir films back in the 50’s because each of the character involved is keeping a secret from one another which culminate at the end of the picture. As for the soundtrack, it’s pretty much used throughout the movie and it’s nothing short of mesmerizing. “Brand Upon the Brain!” inspires me to look up Guy Maddin’s other pictures because (from what I’ve seen so far) they are able to offer unique experience that Hollywood cannot provide.
Brave One, The
★★★ / ★★★★
Jodie Foster never lets me down. I thought this film was gripping because it blurs the line between good and evil. The best scenes present themselves when nothing is going on, when everything is silent and we observe Jodie Foster’s character cope with the death of her lover. I say kudos to the director for showing us awkward camera angles whenever Foster is in pain, in trouble, and suffering. I thought the ending was justified and it elevated the movie to a new level because it tried to do something different than other revenge movies out there. Although Foster doesn’t release too many movies, her repertoire is amazing because each one is as delicious as this piece of art.
Breach
★★★ / ★★★★
With all the glamourized CIA films, people tend to have this idea that working for the CIA is action-packed. Working for the CIA is a job. And like most jobs, it can get pretty tiresome. I like how this film is true to that. I think this is a smart and expertly written thriller. This is a sleeper hit; though many people may not recognize its brilliance and not a lot of people will get to see this, it is an undeniably enjoyable peek at how someone’s career is made and broken.
Breakfast on Pluto
★★★ / ★★★★
Cillian Murphy is a chameleon. Instead of playing a man on the run from zombies (“28 Days Later”), a psychiatrist who wants to drive Gotham City into madness (“Batman Begins, “The Dark Knight”), an assassin who terrorizes Rachel McAdams (“Red Eye”), and one of the chosen few whose goal is to ignite the sun (“Sunshine”), this time around he plays a sympathetic transvestite whose mission is to find his mother in London. Even though the approach of the film is slanted toward the comedic side, there’s a certain sadness and tragedy that lingers throughout the picture. The only main flaw that I could point out is the middle portion is a bit saggy. The little adventures that Murphy’s character (Patrick “Kitten” Braden) went through are interesting but some of them didn’t add up to anything in the end (Maybe that’s the point regarding how life really is sometimes?). The film regains its focus when the idea of family is again introduced during the last thirty minutes. It’s heartbreaking, touching and hopeful at the same time. I also liked the fact that we got to know the friends of Braden. Even though Braden travels to all these places, the audiences get this feeling that his friends have always got his back. Overall, this is a solid film that could’ve been extremely sentimental and cliched but ultimately did not because the writing is smart and the direction is focused.
Breaking and Entering
★★ / ★★★★
This film is very disappointing because the person who directed this film also directed a moving film called “The English Patient.” I don’t know what the director is trying to say about this film because nothing really comes together so that the audience can draw a valid conclusion. I think the establishment of connections is the most important part of a movie with several main characters. I think that that would happen in the end but it didn’t so it left me hanging and confused. Don’t rent this movie unless you have insomnia because it is very slow moving and nothing happens during the first hour; in others words, you will be compelled to sleep. The best thing about this film is seeing the actors act because their performances weren’t half bad.
Brideshead Revisited (2008)
★★ / ★★★★
I really wanted to like this film more than I did because it has elements that instantly grabbed my interest: a period story with a love triangle that happens to comment about the limitations of religion. But for film that runs for about a hundred and thirty minutes, it should’ve been stronger. I thought the first half was very good because it has a mystery regarding why Matthew Goode’s character claims that he doesn’t know himself or what he wants in life. We are then taken back a couple of years when Goode meets the rebellious Ben Whishaw and the elegant Hayley Atwell–two siblings that he fell in love with. We also got to see Emma Thompson as their extremely religious mother and how the way she raised her children had negative consequences. But somewhere in the middle, the story got too cluttered: some characters leave without some sort of closure; then we are suddenly propelled to the present as we try to figure out each character all over again. It was an exhausting experience because I was so invested with the three leads during the first half of the film. I wanted to know more about their lives in the past than I did in the present. Another fatal mistake that the filmmakers had was near the ending. I’m not sure if I should blame Julian Jarrold, the director, or the actual novel itself (I haven’t read it so I wouldn’t know) but there was a scene where we’re supposed to question Goode’s true intentions. After watching that scene, I felt like a rug was pulled from under me and I didn’t know whether I should still care for the character or not. Maybe if the director had done it in a much more subtle manner, it would’ve worked but I was really taken aback. This film offers gorgeous architectures, paintings, and clothing but the story didn’t make much sense because of the way it unravelled in the second half. The best part of the film was watching the chemistry among Goode, Whishaw, and Atwell; how their youth got the best of them even though they had all the potential in the world to become gods of their own destinies.
Bride Wars
★★ / ★★★★
The trailers were more fun than the actual movie. Anne Hathaway and Kate Hudson star as two best friends who, due to a clerical error, were scheduled to have their weddings on the same day. Since the two had their weddings all planned out since childhood, neither lets go of the day and they try to exact revenge on each other instead of dealing with the problem at hand like sane individuals. Having said that, I eventually saw the potential in this film when the two characters started to feel guilt for their actions. I wish the picture had focused more on that instead of the silly (and really ugly) pranks. Yes, the pranks were funny on the surface but there’s an inherent sadness and shame about the whole thing because the audiences are forced to see two best friends destroy each other’s lives. The pranks did not just impact the wedding but their careers and relationship with other people as well. In my opinion, the ending should have been more grim instead of the whole saying-”Sorry”-makes-everything-all-better approach. I doubt that Hathaway would want to be remembered in this wedding-themed movie because, although I love her in pretty much anything (including this one), the script was really weak and the message was way too obvious to fully engage an intelligent audience. While watching “Bride Wars,” I wished I was watching “Rachel Getting Married” instead because at least that one featured a character that was edgy, unlikeable and complex. In “Bride Wars,” everything felt so light and sugar-y to the point where it ended up getting kind of dull. I don’t consider it completely horrible because I like the cast. (Other than the leads, I also enjoyed watching Candice Bergen, Kristen Johnston, Bryan Greenberg, Steve Howey and Chris Pratt.) But it’s not something that I’ll recommend to people other than those who are specifically looking for something harmless and forgettable.
Bridge to Terabithia
★★★ / ★★★★
Finally! A modern movie about the power of imagination that does not rely on special effects. Like “Pan’s Labyrinth,” the film relies on the very human aspect to tell a beautiful story. The film gets darker as it goes along and the theme regarding the loss of innocence is focused. I thought the casting was perfect, too. Josh Hutcherson plays a kid who keeps all of his emotions in really well. I’ve seen him in a couple of films and he is a force to be reckoned with.
Broken Flowers (2005)
★★ / ★★★★
It all started with a pink letter from an old flame with a message written in red that Don Johnston (Bill Murray) is a father of a nineteen-year-old boy. Don, having been dumped by his most recent girlfriend (Julie Delpy), is serious about finding the mother of his son so he makes a list of his former lovers and visits them across America. I liked the premise of the film but the execution was a bit weak for me. I thought the set-up of the story went for too long: the scenes with Jeffrey Wright as Don’s friend who’s enthusiastic about everything may be amusing once in a while but most of their scenes together did not really contribute to the big picture. When Murray finally met the various women in his life (Sharon Stone, Frances Conroy, Jessica Lange, Tilda Swinton), the picture only spent about five minutes for the characters to interact. Five minutes would have worked with a more efficient director or writing but this film needed an extra ten or fifteen minutes with each women. It simply wasn’t enough and was somewhat unforgivable because I thought that the movie was supposed to be about a man who realized how much he missed out on these women and why he was now a lonely aging guy with no wife and child. Those intermissions after he met each women which consisted of driving around and sleeping could have instead been used to explore his former relationships and why some of them were very unhappy when they saw him. It was such a shame because the actresses featured are very talented and they really could’ve elevated this film to a new level. Instead, I felt that it was ashamed to explore the underlying emotions and would rather take the route of dry comedy with too many coincidences and potential explanations. Written and directed by Jim Jarmusch, if it weren’t for Murray’s performance, I would’ve been more critical of this film because it was borderline pretentious about the journey of a lonely man. Those little character quirks such as the lead character’s desperation to find anything pink that might give him a clue to who was the one who sent him the letter took me out of the experience. A similar storyline reminded me of Adam Brooks’ “Definitely, Maybe” only that picture was a lot more fun to watch because it had small payoffs throughout even though it was a more typical Hollywood fare. I say see it for Murray because he really does nail characters who says a thousand words with silence and glances. If only the material was able to match his talent.
Bubble, The (2006)
★★★ / ★★★★
This movie showed my limited knowledge of the Israeli culture, which I think is a great thing because I’m that much more aware by the end of the day. I was surprised by how much the characters are aware and admire the American and European cultures. I enjoyed the references such as the play (which was also turned into a movie) “Bent,” competitions like “American Idol,” to actors like River Phoenix. And those are only some of the references that are talked about; some are posters on the walls and some can be seen on their television sets. In a way, these characters use foreign media to escape the unstable politics of their country. On top of that, the characters deal with finding romance–whether it’s a woman (Daniela Virtzer) searching for a man, or a man (Ohad Knoller) searching for another man (Yousef “Joe” Sweid). For an LGBT picture, it’s very political. I imagine casual moviegoers who want a typical boy-meets-boy story will be very frustrated with this because politics and romance get an equal amount of screen time. But that’s the reason why I was consistently interested in what was going on in the film: the LGBT characters are complex in a different way. It’s nice to see how the characters show their love for country by voicing out how much they oppose the war instead of supporting it. From some of the people I met, they think that the only way to show love for your country is to support its agendas–whatever they may be. This is one of the more meaningful, sensitive, intelligent, and challenging LGBT movies I’ve seen in a while.
Buenos Aires 100 km
★★★ / ★★★★
I really enjoyed watching this small Argentinean film written and directed by Pablo José Meza. At times it reminded me slightly of “Stand by Me” because it explores a group of friends’ dymanics: the elements that keep them together and the elements that keep them apart. Just like most group of friends, I liked that some individuals are closer than others such as Juan Ignacio Perez Roca (as Esteban) and Juan Pablo Bazzini’s (as Damian) characters. The two of them stand out because their personal battles are explored in a thorough manner. Esteban is forced by his father to take drawing classes so he can one day become an engineer and rebuild the small town where they reside. However, his real passion is to be a writer but no one really supports him except Damian and the girl he has a crush on. I thought the film’s strength lies in the silence whenever the camera just lingers on Esteban’s inner struggle to meet his father’s expectations as well as putting his imagination down onto the pages of his notebook. I could identify with him because my mom forced me to focus on school when I was younger instead of playing outside with the other kids. (Don’t get me wrong–she did let me have fun once I’ve done my part.) Although I immensely thank her now that she did that, when I look back on it, sometimes I feel like I did miss some of my childhood because the idea of responsibility was introduced to me very early on. As for Damian, he’s so obsessed about one of the members of their clique as being adopted. Eventually, he finds out that he’s the one adopted and he doesn’t take it too well. He claims that his adoptive parents didn’t really love him because he feels like they babied him to make up for not telling him the truth. I liked that his way of thinking is a bit skewed because, in reality, that’s how young adolescents think. When the two talk to each other, the film becomes alive because the audiences know why they have certain point of views and their motivations. We understand that, beneath their silliness when they hang out as a group, they are intelligent kids who can flourish as adults if they continue to apply themselves. Unfortunately, the other three friends weren’t fully explored and that’s ultimately the film’s weakness. In my opinion, it could’ve been better if it had an extra thirty minutes or so. Otherwise, this character-driven coming-of-age film is impressive in many respects considering that it didn’t have a big budget. Instead, it relies on its good script, interesting performances and careful observations on how friendships are like in real life.
Bug
★★ / ★★★★
It is not exactly a horror film. It’s more like a psychological thriller. I did enjoy the over-the-top performances because it’s the only thing it has going for it. The story is very mysterious to the point of excess, which made me not care what happened to the characters in the end; the tone of it, though very versatile, felt forced at times; and none of the characters are relatable. Don’t even get me started with the political implications. Still, I like the film a bit because, most of the time, we are in one room observing three people or less interact. The film does not offer easy answers to our questions. I personally think it would have elevated the film if they did. Still, this is not a bad movie. It’s just very in-your-face and unintentionally comedic.
Burn After Reading
★★ / ★★★★
There’s something profound in this picture but Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, who wrote and directed the film, failed to eliminate the distracting elements that dragged this movie down. What I love about “Burn After Reading” is its clear thesis: characters mistaking other characters’ identities and intentions, resulting in one big mess on top of another. It’s really too bad because this film is full of talented actors: George Clooney, Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, Tilda Swinton, Brad Pitt and J.K. Simmons. McDormand really steps up to the plate whenever she’s asked to play an extremely quirky character. The last time I’ve seen her this good was in “Fargo.” Another stand-out is Pitt, as McDormand’s co-worker and partner in crime. Both of them gave this film a much-needed life and humor. I wanted to see more of them as the movie progressed but we get scene after scene of Clooney messing around Swinton–physically and psychologically. To be honest, it made me look back on “Michael Clayton,” when the two of them are at their prime. In this movie, they are pretty one-dimensional; when the occupation of one of them was revealed near the end, it felt all too forced, as if the Coen brothers were trying to milk the irony. Malkovich is another character that could’ve been explored more (I love his random over-the-top outbursts) but he’s only portrayed as an angry guy who was fired from his job and lost everything. I love dark comedies because there’s a certain smugness to them that other people won’t understand no matter how many times they see the film, but this one felt way too into itself. But, really, in the overall scope of things, this isn’t necessarily a bad follow-up of “No Country for Old Men.” The style is there; it’s just that it could’ve been edgier and more involving.
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)
★★ / ★★★★
I feel like I’m the only person in the world who didn’t enjoy this western classic about two fugitives, Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) and the Sundance Kid (Robert Redford), who decided to go to Bolivia in order to escape the law and rob banks there instead. Directed by George Roy Hill, Newman and Redford were definitely charismatic and their characters had a brotherly chemistry without even trying; unfortunately, everything about it was so blasé to the point where I thought I was watching boys acting on their id rather than men trying to accomplish something that they could be proud of (no matter unlawful such things may be). Although it had a lot of energy especially during the chase and gun-wielding scenes, the movie had no idea when to turn down the energy and focus on the characters so that the audiences would know more about the two leads, such as where they came from, why the turned to the life of crime and what was it about their relationship that made them dependent on each other. The romantic angle regarding Katharine Ross as Etta Place was a mere filler for me. Those scenes lacked passion and sensuality so I was somewhat uncomfortable watching it. I wish Redford and Newman’s characters had more edge or danger instead of just being likable because there were times when I thought the film glorified violence. Except for the final minutes, I didn’t feel like their actions had any sort of consequences so the movie became one-dimensional for too long. I expected a lot coming into this film because I’ve heard from both critics and audiences alike that it was nothing short of exemplary. Perhaps I was in a bad mood when I saw the picture, I don’t know, but it didn’t engage me like “Bonnie and Clyde,” with which it had a number of parallels. I wouldn’t have minded the (very light) humor so much if it let the darkness took over from time to time. It’s a shame because I really do love watching Newman and Redford because I think they’re very talented actors. Luckily, they star together again in “The Sting,” a movie that really showcases the two of them as a whole package backed up with superior writing and direction (also by George Roy Hill).
Wilderness of Mirrors