Franz Patrick's Film Archive

I’m Not Scared
★★★ / ★★★★

Italian films are like poetry to my ears. Although I’ve seen abduction movies like this before, there’s something about this film that’s fresh. It’s too bad I can’t pinpoint exactly what it is. I think it’s the relationship between the two boys that’s poignant. I wish Hollywood films would make more film like this one. American mainstream movies nowadays are too focused on CGI and gore, that most–not all–of them forget that a touching story beats bloodshed and computers combined. The last scene of the movie was excellent. I wouldn’t change a single thing about it.

I’m Not There
★★ / ★★★★

I thought it started off really well because it instantly grabbed my attention. I don’t know much about Bob Dylan so I was really interested about how the filmmakers would interpret his life, and maybe I could even be inspired to learn more about the actual person. Things started to go downhill when Cate Blanchett appeared on screen. No, it’s not that she’s bad in this film; in fact, I think she’s one of the best aspects of it. It’s just that the things that went along with her, such as the multiple storylines, weren’t interesting enough to keep my attention. I wished that they told the story in a linear fashion instead of making cuts here and there because it was too distracting. Other than Cate Blanchett, I wanted to see more screen time from Ben Whishaw, Christian Bale, and Heath Ledger. The rest were weak and uninvolving. I really wanted to like this film but, as a whole, I can’t quite recommend it. With a little more focus, maybe I would’ve liked it a lot more. The music, though, is phenomenal. It made me wish I lived through the folk music era.

I.O.U.S.A. (2008)
★★★★ / ★★★★

This is an eye-opening documentary about the United States’ journey to a financial disaster and I believe it should be seen by everyone. Prior to this film, I had no idea that (when this film was made), we were about $8.7 trillion in federal debt (the film also estimated it to increase to $10 trillion by 2009). I also had no idea how to answer some of the basic economic questions that the film asked the audiences (via asking random people in the streets). I mean, I knew that the economy was “bad” because that’s all I hear whenever I turn on the news, but “bad” doesn’t even begin to cover how much trouble we are in. Economics might not be my forte when it comes to academics but I strongly believe that, despite one’s focus of education, it’s everyone’s responsibility to understand how the system works. And this movie convinced me that I need to be more proactive in really ascertaining why taxes are increasing, where the taxpayers’ money are going, excessive proposed programs that might get us into deeper debt and more. The movie, directed by Patrick Creadon, presented the deficits into four parts (budget, savings, leadership, trade), focused on why they are a problem, and towards the end suggested of ways how we could help prevent further increases in our debts. I also enjoyed the fact that this documentary considered what happened in the past (Rome, The Great Depression, World Wars I and II, the Clinton and Bush administrations) and how some of the very same problems are repeating in the present. But that’s not all–most importantly, it considered the future and made educated guesses on how the economy would be like by the time college students such as myself are retired (and who might be the financial world leaders). It’s a scary reality (the current) and even a scarier eventuality; but the point of this movie was not to scare people into inaction. Its sole purpose was to bring people into awareness and educate people like me who are not as in touch with our country’s pecuniary situations. To do that, “I.O.U.S.A.” presented a series of animations, interviews with high-level officials, metaphors, and cold hard facts so that we could digest a plethora of information and eventually form our own opinions in the matter. I only wished the documentary had run longer and given more time to explain why its proposed solutions would work. Other than that, watching this film was a very informative and worthwhile experience.

I Am Legend
★★★★ / ★★★★

I really enjoyed this film, not only because it reminded me of “28 Days Later,” but because I saw this film alone and it was about isolation. I absorbed every image this film has to offer because of how haunting the prospect of finding a cure for cancer but turning out to be the opposite. If someone does finally find a cure for cancer, I’ll definitely think of this picture. I was surprised by the intensity of the first forty minutes of the movie. The silences are extremely appropriate; when something makes a sound, my brain couldn’t help but think, “Danger! Danger!” I was quite amused. Although the ending was kind of a letdown, I think it’s not that bad because it’s hopeful and sad at the same time. I think this is one of Will Smith’s best movies theme-wise and acting-wise. More than half of the film, he has to talk to either a dog or an inanimate object… and he makes it work all the way. The scenes with his family really got to me and they elevated this movie in many ways. It may not garner Oscars but I’m glad it’s getting the acclaim it deserves.

I Am Sam
★★ / ★★★★

I wish this film could’ve been better paced because it did have potential to be focused and relentlessly engaging. Sean Penn did a great job in this film, as well as Dakota Fanning and Michelle Pfeiffer. I guess my main problem with it is that it did stumble upon cliche after cliche to the point where I got sick of the film and I wanted it to just end. It’s not a bad movie… but it’s not a good one either. Its quality lies somewhere inbetween.

Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (2009)
★★★ / ★★★★

This third installment of the “Ice Age” series, directed by Carlos Saldanha, is one of the more visually impressive of the three even though story-wise, it’s not as strong as its predecessors. While Manny (Ray Romano) and Ellie (Queen Latifah) prepare for the arrival of their baby, Diego (Denis Leary) decides to leave and pursue his own adventures. Sid (John Leguizamo) begins to feel lonely because he feels like he doesn’t have a family so he steals three T-Rex eggs from underneath the ice in order to feel like a mother. Meanwhile, the mother T-Rex returns and finds her babies missing so she hunts for the perpetrator. A series of funny things and loads of adventures ensue as the group of friends discover an underground habitat full of dangerous plants and even more menacing dinosaurs. I always look forward to each “Ice Age” movie because of the very amusing one-liners and the way it applies human characteristics to its animal characters. In this film, it focuses on parenting but the jokes are easy to understand so the little kids would not feel left out. There were more than a handful of highlights in the picture including the three baby T-Rex as they follow Sid around because they think he’s their mommy, the venus flytrap-like plant sticky situation and the battle in the air using some of the flying dinosaurs. While they may be interesting to look at, I enjoyed the fact that there were still jokes being thrown at the audiences while all the action was happening so it didn’t at all feel mindless or pointless. A new character was introduced, a weasel with an eye-patch and a British accent voiced by Simon Pegg. He really increased the manic factor of the film which was a good move because when he arrived on screen, all the other characters didn’t feel as energetic. The only problem I had with the movie is that it didn’t really have defining storyline as it did in the first installment. Like the second, this one is more about the fun and the adventures rather than dealing with real emotions. Still, I consider this a good movie for kids because it’s fast-paced, there’s a plethora of colors and attractive images. I couldn’t help but smile whenever I see Sid being his silly self and the infamous Scrat as he tries to (desperately) obtain an acorn from another rock rat. “Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs” may not be deep, but it’s satisfying enough.

Ice Harvest, The
★★★ / ★★★★

I instantly loved this movie because it reminded me so much of “Fargo” and “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” but a little bit lighter on the dark humour. With a little less setting up who’s who and a little more cat and mouse games, this would’ve been a spicy four-star movie. John Cusack is perfect for this role because I’ve always thought of him as kind of slow-moving, and he annoyed me in movies where he’s supposed to play a guy who’s agile. In this one, he plays somewhat of a drunk lawyer and he got the slow-moving thing perfectly. Billy Bob Thornton’s sarcasm and wit was spot-on and somewhat reminded me of his role in “Bad Santa.” This movie feels very localized because we see the same places again and again but it never gets boring. I did enjoy the cold and impersonal tone of it, which reminded me of “The Ice Storm” (okay, not just because everything is dark and icy). If you did enjoy any of those movies I’ve mentioned and a little ounce of dark humour, you’re going to enjoy this one.

Ice Storm, The
★★★ / ★★★★

I saw this film back when I was in high school and I didn’t get the point of it. Upon viewing it with a lot more experience, I thought that it was a smart observation about surburban life. Although it was somber in various levels, it is also darkly comic while still being tragic. Thanks to Ang Lee’s ability to balance tones and characters, this turns out to be not just another look at suburban depression. It actually has something important to say, which should be apparent by the end of the film. I must give kudos to Sigourney Weaver for playing an unlikeable but hilarious character. Although her character says one thing, she completely thinks and does the opposite–which I think most people can relate to, including myself. Christina Ricci, Tobey Maguire, and Katie Holmes were (or looked anyway) so young here to the point where it was kind of shocking. All of them delivered and proved to be interesting side characters. In a way, this is kind of like a classic novel that literature professors love to dissect. Motifs, contradiction, foreshadowing… all of those things that make up a rich novel can be found in this film. If one is into films about tragedy in suburbia, I recommend this one without hesitation.

I Could Never Be Your Woman
★★★ / ★★★★

I’m not that surprised this film went straight to DVD. But, in my opinion, it should have been given the chance to win over audiences in the cinema regardless of the whole older-woman-meets-younger-man premise. I thought the acting was pretty strong and it has a bona fide sense of humour. It provided a good balance between Michelle Pfeiffer finding a beau (Paul Rudd) and her relationship with her daughter (Saoirse Ronan). My favourite scenes were when Ronan would play songs by other artists on her acoustic guitar and altering the lyrics. It was smart, funny, and true. As usual, Pfeiffer and Rudd did a great job in their respective roles. I just wish that it could’ve done something more daring, if not a little bit darker. Perhaps then it could’ve been given the chance to be in theaters. Still, this is a pretty good movie–better than most romantic comedies that are currently being released in the cinema. I say rent it if one is up to a light romantic comedy.

Idiocracy
★ / ★★★★

Written and directed by Mike Judge, this catastrophe of a movie tells the story of how an average man (Luke Wilson) and woman (Maya Rudolph), after agreeing to participate in a top secret government experiment, end up waking up in the future and finding themselves to be the smartest man and woman on the planet. It’s an interesting idea but it had an egregious execution; instead of telling an intelligent story about people with low IQs, it becomes another forgettable, stupid-funny movie full of slapstick and unnecessary gay jokes. Don’t even get me started on how most people below the IQ of 25 could still function like a normal being (walking, talking, et cetera) without taking into account the sensitive issue of people who are severely mentally retarded. To me, this is a one-joke movie that did not deserve a green light from the studios. At first I could tolerate it when the film tried to point out how stupid society already is in year 2005. But when the movie fast-forwarded five hundred years later, it still had the same jokes but more obvious and unfunny. Good actors like Wilson, Dax Shepard and Justin Long were left with nothing to do except make themselves sound like college students smoking weed. If this was meant to be a commentary about the younger generation’s apathy to anything remotely intellectual due to the recent popularity of certain types of music, lifestyles, technologies, and brands, it just doesn’t work because it failed to show the positive sides of those elements. If one is to make a successful farce out of something, one should not present it one-dimensionally. And it’s not like it tried either. This film is nothing but one-dimensional and I found myself feeling upset while watching it. I might’ve lost a few brain cells while watching this garbage so I insist that you avoid this movie at all cost.

If… (1968)
★★★★ / ★★★★

This is one of those films that I will never forget because of how daring it was (still is) especially back at the time of its release. Lindsay Anderson was able to helm a counterculture film that fuses reality with surrealism and dark fantasy, all the while embracing its satirical nature. This was Malcolm McDowell’s first feature film and it was easy to tell that he was a star. He played his character with such domineering sneer and swagger, it was almost as if he was preparing to star in “A Clockwork Orange” directed by the great Stanley Kubrick. The way McDowell’s character and his friends (David Wood and Richard Warwick) were constantly pushed toward the edge by the faculty was fascinating to watch. Each scene has an implication and a certain bite to the point where I found myself referring back to the earlier scenes and realized that foreshadowing is one of its strongest elements. The final scene involving a bloody student uprising against the school system was done in such a provocative way; I didn’t know whether to laugh or take it seriously. Another element that I found to be interesting was the romance between McDowell and a waitress (Christine Noonan). That one “animalistic” scene was so out of the blue but it was exemplary because it’s as if it symbolizes every student’s frustration in that public school. Lastly, the romance between Warwick and one of the younger boys (Rupert Webster) provided a much-needed sensitivity to the picture. Even though they may not have many scenes where they conversed, when they finally did, I couldn’t help but have a smile on my face. This may have been really controversial back in the late 1960s but I think it’s more relevant today. School shootings have now become far too common because of the way students feel about their teachers, peers and the school’s atmosphere. (On the other hand, one can argue that school shootings happen for no reason at all rather than to inflict pain and violence.) This film does a tremendous job avoiding expected rationalizations for the students’ future actions whenever it could. If one is craving for something different in style and perspective, this is the one to see.

Igor
★★ / ★★★★

I really got my hopes up after watching this animated flick’s trailer for the first time but after actually seeing the movie, I couldn’t help but feel slightly disappointed. Igor (John Cusack) wants to be more than a deformed lowly assistant so he figures that he can get the recognition he deserves by creating an evil monster for the Evil Science Fair. Instead, Igor ends up creating a harmless monster who was eventually brainwashed to be an aspiring actress (voiced by the lovely Molly Shannon). The conflict comes in when Dr. Schadenfreude (Eddie Izzard) decides to steal Igor’s invention and pass it as his own in order to be the king of Malaria. One of the many problems that this film has is its many references to “Frankenstein.” Since the filmmakers’ audiences are children, I don’t think they will be able to fully appreciate the references because most of them probably haven’t read the novel or seen any “Frankenstein” films. Sure, the obvious slapstick and winking at the camera are present but those elements won’t satisfy astute adults who want to experience something more rewarding like in “WALL-E” and “Ratatouille.” Another problem I had with the film is the way the story unfolded. I think it spent too much of its time preaching the importance of choosing good over evil (especially toward the end). Actions speak louder than words and the filmmakers could’ve been more efficient by showing the audiences why choosing good is better than evil instead of making big, somewhat meaningless (and cliché) speeches. My favorite part of the film was its most sensitive: when the monster decides to give Igor, Brain (Sean Hayes) and Scamper (Steve Buscemi) gifts. Scenes like that made me not dislike this animated movie as much. Another negative is that sometimes Brain and Scamper outshined Igor. Those two are way too hyper and loud which made them more interesting than the lead character. I did like the syle of animation because it reminded me of “Corpse Bride” and “The Nightmare Before Christmas.” However, it goes to show that without strong writing, colorful animation can only entertain so much.

I Have Never Forgotten You: The Life & Legacy of Simon Wiesenthal (2007)
★★★ / ★★★★

Nicole Kidman narrated this documentary about a very influential man–a humanitarian of all sorts–named Simon Wiesenthal, a survivor from the concentration camps who made it his life mission to hunt down Nazi criminals so that they would be forced to take responsibilities for the horrible things they’ve done and give justice to those who were murdered and the families that were affected. I decided to watch this film because I distinctly remember reading a review from a critic saying that Wiesenthal partly did what he did because he wanted to get revenge for the killings of about ninety families and relatives. After watching the movie, I must say that I cannot disagree more. I thought Wiesenthal’s decision to keep going despite the threats on his life and those of his family’s, the strain when it comes to his relationships with others, and the constant reminders of the terrible things that happened to him was nothing short of heroic. It’s not like Wiesenthal hunted the Nazis down and placed his own definition of justice upon them. No, he actually turned the criminals over to the government and it was up for them to decide what should be done to the Nazis. I hardly consider his actions as revenge because his main motivation is to simply express a collective grief so that people would ultimately be able to move on. How the movie painted the journey of a man on the verge of death due to starvation to a force that impacted the justice system all over the world was truly inspiring. I also loved how the documentary highlighted some of the most important war criminals that Wiesenthal caught, such as Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele. The fact that those scenes came hand-in-hand with some of rare footages of extremely emaciated Jewish people made me really angry and sad at the same time. Like I did in high school when we studied World War II, I questioned myself how people could have so much hate and actually act upon such negative emotions to the point of genocide. I still don’t have answers to the many questions I have about the psychology of the Nazis and maybe I never will. I thought this film was a great tribute to Simon Wiesenthal’s life. I think people should see this documentary because it would be nice to remember his many amazing achievements, which undoubtedly impacted our (and many other countries’) justice system.

I Know What You Did Last Summer
★★★ / ★★★★

It may seem like a typical slasher movie on the outside but I was surprised when I realized how much suspense this movie had. The actual kills are rarely shown, which is a good thing, because the horror lies in the chases and the killer hiding in the shadows. I liked that there’s only four main characters: Jennifer Love Hewitt, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Ryan Phillippe, and Freddie Prinze Jr. The audience didn’t get to know them as much as we should have but they’re not exactly boring either. This movie preys on people’s fears: when someone’s actively trying to run you over, someone hiding in your house but you not knowing about it, and hearing strange noises in your car when you’re driving alone are some effective chills that this film has to offer. I did have a major problem with the script, though, because the dialogue made my eyes roll. I feel like the characters were not that intelligent or they didn’t talk like they’re in college. This movie kept me guessing who the killer was up until the end and it was suspenseful. Those two alone are enough for me to recommend this.

I Love You, Man
★★★ / ★★★★

Paul Rudd stars as a guy who can relate more to women than men, but he needs a best man for his wedding so he decides to start making some guy friends. He goes on a series of “man dates” and he eventually meets Jason Segel, a fun-loving guy who Rudd can genuinely connect with. Although I really liked this film, I didn’t quite love it because the middle portion wasn’t as funny as the beginning and the end. That inconsistency is glaring because when one experiences a lot of laughter in the beginning, expectations rise and a successful comedy should be able to deliver all the way through. However, all of the actors such as Rashida Jones, J.K. Simmons, Jane Curtin and Andy Samberg added something to the table. Even the side characters are interesting and hilarious because each of them has a certain quirk that doesn’t get old. I thought this buddy comedy was successful at making fun of the quirk instead of the character itself (when it wants to). However, there were moments when the film is actually making fun of the character which acts as a mirror on what the society expects from an individual. Ultimately, Rudd is the star here. I’ve seen him in a plethora of films where he’s the best friend or the funny brother. I think this movie, written and directed by John Hamburg, would’ve fallen apart without Rudd. In many scenes, I could feel his character’s awkwardness to the point where I wish he would stop talking to save himself further humiliation for trying so hard to be one of the guys. In a way, I saw his character’s silent suffering as a commentary about society–how guys are expected to act, look and speak a certain way in order to be accepted as a “man.” So the laughter that the movie gets from the audiences acts as a confirmation that guys who are more in touch with their feminine side are expected to change their ways and be how a “normal” guy should be. Like “Superbad,” “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” and “Knocked Up,” this is a really enjoyable, bona fide film and I would recommend it to anyone who is a fan of awkward characters being forced to deal with awkward situations.

Imaginary Heroes
★★★★ / ★★★★

I saw this movie when I was in my first or second year of high school and I remember considering it as a good film. Now, I consider it a movie that reminds me of me and my family; the loving yet flawed parents, the lack of communication between siblings, the quest for identities, the feeling of being the black sheep of the family… all of which I can relate to. A lot of scenes really got to me upon watching it the second time because it was like watching me (in the shoes of Emile Hirsch’s character) back then. But looking at this film without the sentimentality, I still think it’s very good because each scene has an impact when it comes to the bigger picture. The drama and the comedy are surpringly balanced. The actors owned who they were supposed to portray, especially Sigourney Weaver as a mom that one can easily talk to because she’s spunky and loving all at the same time. The mother-son relationship was especially touching amidst all the laughter and tears. I highly recommend it to anyone looking for a not-so-big film but delivers a great message that one can take through one’s lifetime.

In & Out
★★★ / ★★★★

Gay stereotypes are abound in this movie but it works somehow. I found myself laughing at more than half of the jokes because I realized that this is supposed to be a light-hearted, fluffy film. I also know that this was released in 1997 so I think it makes a powerful statement on how gay people are seen back then as opposed to now. When one really thinks about it, a lot of things have changed… yet a lot of things remained the same. The best character here that helped this film from sinking in its own narcissism is Joan Cusack’s character. She was freakin’ hilarious in this movie as a fiance who is about to marry a gay guy. My favourite line of hers (among many) is “Is everybody gay?! Is this ‘The Twilight Zone’?!” Her delivery of that line is spot-on. Thinking about it now makes me snicker. If you’re into gay movies, check this one out. It won’t disappoint.

In Bruges
★★★★ / ★★★★

All I could say as the credits started rolling was, “Wow.” I relished every minute of this film because it managed to successfully fuse two of my favourite genres–dark comedy and suspense thriller–in an elegant and astute manner. Granted, three-fourths of the movie leaned toward the former and the rest leaned toward the latter but it does not mean it’s less rewarding. Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson have such great chemistry. As the picture progressed, we get to realize that their characters weren’t just fellow hitmen–they were more like father and son. I was surprised by how much emotionally invested I was with the characters regardless of their occupation. The filmmakers were able to show that they, too, are people and are capable of feeling remorse and giving someone another chance for redemption. Never have I seen Farrell deliver as great (and as complete) a performance as in this movie. Farrell and Gleeson are pitch-perfect here. I must also commend Ralph Fiennes for giving a menacing (and funny) performance as the boss of Farrell and Gleeson. Even though he’s a killer like the other two, he has his own principles as well. He didn’t give as much screen time but we get to understand his motivations just as well. Lastly, I must give kudos to Martin McDonagh for writing and directing such a great first feature film. I was a big fan of his short film “Six Shooter” and I hope he releases more witty films like this one. All of that said, let me finish this review by stating that “In Bruges” is one of the best movies of 2008 so far.

Incredible Hulk, The (2008)
★★★★ / ★★★★

I’m greatly surprised with this movie because “The Hulk” directed by Ang Lee was such a disappointment; that if a great director couldn’t make it work, there must be something wrong with where the material was based upon. “The Incredible Hulk,” directed by Zak Penn, is much more engaging because it was action-packed without having to result to mindless violence and Edward Norton can easily be digested as a man trying to change himself for the sake of others’ safety. Moreover, I loved that science was constantly used as an explanation and weapon: I loved the whole primer-DNA segment with the hilarious and sarcastic scientist, played by Tim Blake Nelson, because that’s one of the main ways to alter protein expression–and therefore phenotype–in real life). Liv Tyler is also pretty darn great here because she was both elegant and strong in her own way. I also like the CGI look of this Hulk a lot better than the other one. Lee’s Hulk is more light or flourescent green and it looked more cartoonish. Penn’s, on the other hand, is dark green and looks more sinister. Overall, this is without a doubt, the better film not just in comparison with the first, but as a stand-alone film. I rarely say this but this film deserves a sequel. I’m crossing my fingers for that Avengers film! …But I must say, I’m really curious about the longer version that Norton wants released (and since it wasn’t, he chose to not advertise for this film).

Incredibles, The
★★★★ / ★★★★

This is one of the many great Pixar films because it’s extremely family-friendly and it doesn’t get old after one viewing. It’s smart enough to focus on characterization during the first forty-five minutes and saving the action-adventure for the rest of its running time. After the audiences are familiar enough with the basics of the characters, each of them are put on the spotlight and shows us their strengths and weaknesses both as superheroes and regular human beings. Even though it’s full of energy, it doesn’t sacrifice its intelligence when it comes to its script and visual candy. I was impressed with some of the ideas of this film such as the superheroes getting sued because some people did not want to be saved, the superheroes going underground because their actions are no longer appreciated, and the superheroes eventually rising up from the ashes like phoenixes. Finally, I admired its soundtrack which reminded me of spy films like the “James Bond” franchise and television shows like “Alias.” Despite all the attractions for children, this film contains adult-oriented jokes found in Bob and Helen’s marriage, humour about fashion such as Edna’s observations about designers and supermodels, and even a big reference to Eminem’s song called “Stan.” Suffice to say, this movie is quite, well, incredible.

Independence Day
★★ / ★★★★

Even though this made millions of dollars in the box office, it’s a very disappointing film overall because it’s pretty on the outside but has nothing to offer inside. I think the filmmakers focused too much on the visual effects to the point where they totally ignored the emotional core. When it tried to be sentimental, it just didn’t work because most of the characters are one-dimensional so the audience can’t relate to their struggle. I expected this film to have more teeth and bite–the closest it came to reaching my expectations were scenes where we see the aliens up close. There’s real suspense during those scenes because we’re as curious as the characters that are interacting with them. As for its pacing, I couldn’t believe nothing happened during the first fifty minutes of the picture. In those minutes, characters are merely walking around or panicking. After those suffocating minutes, the film got a bit better but not by much. The action scenes were uninspired and the characters had out of place one-liners that weren’t funny. I was glad for the film to end, which unfortunately took two hours and thirty minutes. It wasn’t worth it at all because we had to wait for long periods of time for three-minute somewhat above average payoffs.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
★★★★ / ★★★★

Well, I thought it was brilliant. I can’t help but laugh (or scoff) whenever I read or hear comments like, “The magic that was present in the first three films are gone!” Well, it’s been nineteen years; what did they expect? Personally, I’m a die-hard “Indiana Jones” fan and I embraced this film fully, despite its flaws. I thought it was highly entertaining because of the chase sequences, the return of Harrison Ford and Karen Allen, and that legendary theme song. The actor that made this film that much more special is not Shia LaBeouf (although I wouldn’t mind seeing him star as the next Indiana Jones of some sort because he was interesting here), but Cate Blanchett. She never ceases to disappoint no matter what movie she’s starring in, but I can tell that she had a lot of fun with this one. She’s very effective as the main villain because of her mysterious personality, the many ways she can fight, the manner in which she orders people around, and that daring jet-black haircut. The pace is brisk and the locations are eye-popping. It doesn’t take itself too seriously, just like the past “Indiana Jones” films, which was a good move from Steven Spielberg. As for the ending, I thought it was extremely appropriate because at that period in time, people were curious about aliens. If only more people would look at the context, they wouldn’t have such problems. Overall, I thought it was worth the two-hour wait prior to the midnight premiere. I want the filmmakers to make another one in the next two or three years because I crave that sense of adventure whenever I go to the cinema.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
★★★★ / ★★★★

This installment of the “Indiana Jones” franchise is crucial because it contains most of the series’ heart. The audiences get to know more about Indiana Jones by seeing how he was like when he was a teenager, briefly but brilliantly played by the forever talented River Phoenix. Not only that, Indiana’s father is introduced, hilariously and wisely played by the great Sean Connery. Despite the amusing bickering between the two Dr. Jones, there are moments in the film–may they be a specific glance, a sensitive camera angle, or an expert delivery of silence–when the viewers get to truly feel the strained relationship between father and son. It is often touching, if not relatable. The plot is more similar to “Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark” because the characters jump from one country to another. It is definitely less darker than “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” which is a good thing because this installment found an excellent balance regarding its tone, which the second one lacks. Action scenes are found everywhere: land, sea, sky, underground… I’m surprised they did not go to outer space. Still, it’s extremely difficult to pick out the best scene because each one is special and engrossing. So, if I were to pick a favourite emotional scene that does not have anything to do with guns and explosions, I would say the best would be the chilling few seconds when Indiana Jones is a few inches away from one of the most evil men that has walked to Earth. Just thinking about it gives me the creeps. I think this is arguably the most fun out of the three because the main villain are the Nazis. And who doesn’t enjoy watching Nazis getting kicked, flattened, chopped, and shot? The “Indiana Jones” franchise is one of the most consistent and masterfully done serials along with “The Bourne” series.

Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark
★★★★ / ★★★★

This film stood the test of time because it is still thrilling on every level. Steven Spielberg crafted the epitome of an action-adventure film because not only does it have a heart and an interesting story, it does not succumb to exploitative violence. Instead of just random explosions and flying bullets, it plays with the audience’s sense of fear and wonder, from hundreds of slithering, slimy snakes in one room to the mysticism and the occult. Harrison Ford is perfectly casted as Indiana Jones, both a scholar and an adventurer. Indiana Jones is a beloved film character because he could be a real person: instead of pummelling every person in his path, he is sometimes beaten to a pulp, which incidentally enough, has humor. The main actress of the film is not your typical damsel-in-distress, which is refreshing, because she can actually kick butt. The soundrack is extremely rousing so every time it comes on, I am compelled to get off my seat and go in a treasure hunt myself. This film will always have a special place in my heart because every time I watch it, I cannot help but have a silly smile on my face. It’s one of those movies that will instantly grab one’s attention because each scene has something special in it. It deservedly spawned three sequels (so far) and I can only hope it can keep going because most action-adventure films nowadays lack a balance of a powerful story, loveable characters, and exciting/creative action sequences.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
★★★★ / ★★★★

I used to think that this was the weakest link of the “Indiana Jones” series but upon viewing it for the third time, I realized its greatness. I’m glad that Steven Spielberg did not try to duplicate “The Raiders of the Lost Ark” because that would have been a rip-off. Instead, he gave the audiences something different, something a bit darker than its predecessor. This time around, Indiana Jones does not jump from one country to another, which I think made the storyline that much more focused. The addition of Kate Capshaw and Jonathan Ke Quan was a good move because they provided a much needed comic relief since this installment deals with child slavery. The change from a strong female of the first film to a high maintenance female of the second film was interesting even though it is a bit more traditional. Still, Capshaw’s character, although annoying at times, is funny nonetheless. Ke Quan’s character who sees Indiana Jones as a friend/father figure provided some sort of emotional core. Although we did not learn that much about Indy this time, that is what the third installment is for. After I looked closer, I realized that this is just as fun and integral as the other parts of the series. Three scenes stood out for me: the bugs, the mine car chase, and the bridge. Those three scenes are strokes of mastery; I’ll admit that I had to flinch and close eyes because they were so exciting!

Informers, The (2008)
★ / ★★★★

Set in the early 1980’s Los Angeles, “The Informers” based on the novel by Bret Easton Ellis, was about the emptiness of multiple characters who would rather try to escape their problems in hopes that they would eventually go away rather than tackling them head-on. Although there were five to six storylines, only about two or three worked for me. I wished that Gregor Jordan, the director, instead focused his energy on those three and really explored why the characters chose to make certain decisions. Kim Basinger, Billy Bob Thornton, Mickey Rourke and Winona Ryder are the big names who I thought would elevate this picture. However, their storylines were so uninteresting, they might as well not have appeared in it. What did work for me was Jon Foster as a rich twentysomething who seemingly had it all but he chose not to use his priviledges to his advantage. Instead, he decided to deal drugs and hang out with people who really did not care about him–people who only cared about drugs, sex and living the luxurious life. I was really engaged with his scenes because little by little he realized that he was just being used, especially how his girlfriend didn’t care about him as much as he cared for her. I also liked the dynamics between Foster and his sister and how they felt about their parents’ (Basinger and Thorton) decision to move in together after they’ve been separated. Unfortunately, that bit was very underdeveloped. Lastly, I thought the scenes in Hawaii with Chris Isaak and Lou Taylor Pucci–father and son, respectively–was pretty well-done. It was somewhat humorous to me because it was a classic desparate father-son bonding where everything pretty much went wrong. But it could also be seen through a dramatic lens because the son hid this true hatred toward his father since the father only cared about himself. I really believe that critical adjustments such as a different director, sharper and bolder writing, eliminating storylines and expanding others (like the rising unknown disease now known as AIDS), this movie could have become a totally worthwhile experience. After all, the material was based on the works of a writer a really enjoyed such as “American Psycho” and “The Rules of Attraction.” “The Informers” could have provided insight on how it was like to live life without any sort of internal locus on control and how that manner of living could drive us to the ultimate levels of boredom, unsatisfaction, and madness.

Inglourious Basterds (2009)
★★★★ / ★★★★

Those who believe that Quentin Tarantino (“Resevoir Dogs,” “Pulp Fiction,” “Kill Bill,” “Death Proof”) is slowly losing his touch when it comes to filmmaking and storytelling should watch this film. “Inglourious Basterds” essentially covers three groups of characters: Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) and his men’s (Eli Roth, Michael Fassbender, B.J. Novak, Omar Doom) quest to hunt, scalp, and kill Nazis; the intimidating Christoph Waltz as Col. Hans Landa, a Nazi hunter who prefers to be categorized as a detective more than anything else and who happens to speak English, French, Italian, and German which proves to be quite useful; and Mélanie Laurent as Shosanna Dreyfus, who survived Waltz’ massacre three years ago and had plans of her own, along with her trusted friend Marcel (Jacky Ido), to avenge her family. Divided into five sublime chapters, at first the characters had nothing to do with each other. But as the picture went on they all collided, had very entertaining conversations and bloody violence, just as one could expect from a Tarantino motion picture.

I was surprised with how quickly the movie paced itself, considering that I needed to use the bathroom during the first thirty minutes. (I gulped down a lot of soda during the previews.) I couldn’t help but get so engaged with the dialogue because in some lines, the characters attach some sort of threat into their words or tone to the point where it made me feel like I was in the same room with them. Although this was a World War II picture to begin with, it became so much more than that. In the second half, it became about a project about the love for the cinema and using that as a template to put these very intense characters under one roof. What I noticed about this movie was that with each major character, Tarantino moved the camera to match the person’s idiosyncracies and intentions. Therefore, it became more than just a World War II picture with necessary violence. It became a personal character study where the characters became tangled in the intricacies of politics, bureaucracies, and their own morals (sometimes lack thereof). The way Tarantino played with the movie’s tone greatly impressed me (as I was in his other films). One minute I just feel like hiding behind my hands because either something very violent was about to happen or a character knew something the other character did not know and was about to get caught; the next minute I found myself laughing so hard (due to the comedy or relief, it was often difficult to tell) because a character did or said something hilarious.

I can definitely understand why the American mainstream could be disappointed with this movie. For one, pretty much half of the movie had subtitles. (I love subtitled films. Sometimes, I even watch movies spoken in English with subtitles.) They could find it challenging to read and pay attention to the images at the same time. Second, with its 153-minute running time, the audiences were asked to sit through extended dialogues with (from some blogger reviews I’ve read) “very little payoffs that only happened toward the end of each chapter”). As a person who loves long movies, I cannot disagree more because the payoffs happen as the lines were being said. It was the subtleties in each intonation and movement that really made this film that much better than typical summer movie flicks. It was intelligent, had great sense of build-up, very tense, and brutal. So, for me, those kinds of arguments that people brought up were simply a matter of acquired taste. Hey, I didn’t start off loving foreign films and long movies either. It took some time and when it finally clicked, my moviegoing experience became that much more rewarding.

I strongly believe that “Inglourious Basterds” is one of the best movies of summer 2009 (if not the best). The performances are top-notch, especially from Christoph Waltz who is already getting Oscar buzz (and deservedly so), the pacing was done skillfully, and best of all, it knew how and when to have fun. If it had taken itself too seriously, it probably would not have been as enjoyable, it would have simply been violent and heartless. I’m already looking forward to Tarantino’s next project.

Inkheart (2008)
★ / ★★★★

I had high expectations from this movie because the premise of it was interesting: a man named Mo Folchart (Brendan Fraser) who was a “Silvertongue” had the ability to bring book characters to live simply just by reading about them out loud. He did not always have such an ability (or was he aware of it) so over the years, the disparate characters from the books were taken to the human world–some of them good (Paul Bettany as the fire-wielding Dustfinger and Rafi Gavron as Farid, a sort of Aladdin-like character) and some bad (led by Andy Serkis as Capricorn). One of my biggest problems with this movie was its dialogue. It was so uninspired and it lacked a sense of wonder that movies like the “Harry Potter” and “The Chronicles of Narnia” innately have. Since this was based on a children’s novel by Cornelia Funke, I expected it to be at least entertaining by way of enchancing the audiences’ imagination. Instead, we got this overly long exposition, chaotic action scenes that did not amount to anything, and characters that were not exactly likable or memorable. I usually love watching Helen Mirren’s elegance but I think she was completely miscast as the grandmother who loves books and the indoors more than other people and the outdoors. Her character’s attempt at humor made me feel sort of ashamed because none of them were even slightly amusing. There were many points in the film where I just felt bored and wondered about the technical things. For instance, I thought about the repercussions that would happen in the book if the characters were suddenly taken off the pages. I thought of the “exchange” that had to happen–if one was to be transported into the book, wouldn’t it make more sense if someone comparable would be taken out of the book? There were a plethora of plotholes and by the end of it, I was just tired of being disappointed. Perhaps with a better direction other than Iain Softley, the translation from novel to film would have been better. I suggest not to waste time with this one. Even the kids would be bored out of their minds.

I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry
★★ / ★★★★

When I first saw the trailers, I thought, “Great. Another Adam Sandler movie but this time, he makes fun of homosexuals! Gee, that’s new.” So, I initially did not want to see this film in the cinema because I did not want to waste ten bucks. But as movie reviews surfaced online, I read that some people felt that it was offensive. I wanted to know if it really was and what made it so offensive for some people so I decided to watch it with some friends. I found out that they were right: this film had offensive moments… but it also had occasional (or sporadic, as some may argue) funny moments and fun cameos that I (kind of) forgot about Sandler saying “Faggot!” in a really fucked up way (multiple times) and the way he (or his character) made fun of people on the heavy side. There’s dark comedy… and there’s this. There’s a difference. I happen to love dark comedies but mean-spirited, fucked up humour is not my thing. This is not an enjoyable film like “Spanglish” or “Click” so I suggest you stay away and catch it on DVD instead. It is not worth your ten dollars.

Insider, The
★★★★ / ★★★★

This film is so intense from the moment it started and the plot only got more complex (not to mention more interesting) from there. This is based on a true story of a man who was interviewed on “60 Minutes” (played by Russell Crowe as Dr. Jeffrey Wigand) to expose the lies of a tabacco corporation, especifically Brown & Williamson, when they claimed that nicotine is not at all addictive and harmful to one’s well-being. Complexity ensues when the tabacco corporation threatens CBS with a lawsuit; CBS then decides not to show the public the interview because they thought that they would lose, which is truly heartbreaking because Dr. Wigand has sacrificed both his professional and personal life for that one (compelling) interview. Lowell Bergman (played by Al Pacino) approaches Dr. Wigand for a story and he shows the audiences what it means to have journalistic integrity. I find it very difficult to summarize the plot of the film because there are many layers to it. The only way to fully understand the picture is to watch it closely because each detail comments on how the media functions, how far corporations are willing to go to protect their money and those unfortunate people that get caught in the giant maelstrom of lies, confusion, and deceit (not to mention death threats and restraining orders). Yes, it’s a wordy film and it will definitely repel those that are not into watching pictures that are all about the technicalities in bureaucracies, but that’s what makes “The Insider” so rewarding: it’s not a common motion picture. There are a lot of highlights in the film but some of my favorites include: Bruce McGill’s anger during Dr. Wigand’s deposition, Pacino’s speech involving a “cat” being “out of the bag,” and Crowe’s scenes when he was alone as he reflects upon his past actions–questioning himself whether or not what everything he’s done is worth it. I felt so much for Crowe’s character because the blood-sucking Brown & Williamson fired him for no reason and then later took everything from him to the point where I felt like Crowe’s character was on the verge of suicide. I highly recommend this film, directed with such visual flair by Michael Mann, because it is able to tackle the idea of character assassination in a very scary but very realistic manner. I will remember this film for a very long time because pretty much everything about it works, especially the intense acting from all the actors involved.

International, The (2009)
★★★ / ★★★★

This film, astutely directed by Tom Tykwer, reminded me so much of “The Interpreter” because it’s realistic when it comes to the complexities of international crime and relations. Clive Owen and Naomi Watts star as an Interpol agent and assistant district attorney, respectively; as the two leads get closer to the truth, their morals are questioned, they gamble their lives and the lives of those they love. Their main goal is to bring down the source of international corruption led by the IBBC. To say that that particular task is incredibly difficult is putting it lightly because bringing down the IBBC means dealing with economists, politians, bankers and terrorists. What I admired about this film is its patience: it’s not afraid to let its characters talk about the technical inner workings of banks to the point where the audiences get utterly lost. Although most people will get frustrated with it because they claim to not know what is going on, I enjoyed it because that’s what makes it real. That issue of not knowing made it that much more suspenseful. Speaking of suspense, the writer, Eric Singer, knows how to effectively build tension. Just when you think everything is going to go wrong, nothing does; when you think everything is going to go right, something goes incredibly wrong. Right from the beginning, the film established its craft and intelligence; I felt like I was watching the best episodes of “Alias.” Right away, it was able to show what some people are willing to do in order to accomplish their endgame. This is one of the first adult movies of 2009 and definitely not for everyone. There are not a lot of action scenes but when those action scenes appear, they are intense and heart-pounding. If one is looking for a typical action film, this is not the one to see. However, if one is looking for an intelligent script, moral and business ambiguities, this gets a high recommendation from me.

Interview with the Vampire (1994)
★★★★ / ★★★★

After being caught up with the “True Blood” craze, I decided to visit some of my favorite vampire movies. “Interview with the Vampire,” directed by Neil Jordan, was one of those movies I saw in early high school that I loved but forgot the details as years went on. I’m surprised this one strongly held up against other horror pictures, especially vampire movies. It’s something I didn’t quite expect because the movies I used to think were scary when I was younger turned out to be silly and vapid in storytelling. Tom Cruise stars as Lestat, a vampire who was as equally hungry for blood as he was with power. He one day decided to make Louis (Brad Pitt) into a vampire because, at least according to him, he wanted to give Louis a choice to relieve his pain of losing his wife and child. Despite turning into the undead, Louis still managed to hang onto his humanity by refusing to feed on humans. This bothered Lestat and thought that Louis’ loneliness would be eliminated by giving Louis a companion–in a form of a vampire child played by Kirsten Dunst. But this all happened in the past as the details which covered centuries were revealed by Louis to an enthusiastic reporter (Christian Slater). Although I did read the novels by Anne Rice, I only could remember three things: Louis, Lestat and the passion (both good and bad) between the two. What made me really engaged about this film was not because it was scary in content. I was actually more into Louis’ humanity, his efforts to abstain from human blood, and his eventual search for those who were like him. That romanticism was reflected into the elegant designs of each room in the 18th century to the dark corners of the catacombs. Another thing that was interesting was Kirsten Dunst. As an adult actress, she bores me to death because every emotion she wants to portray on screen feels the same. But in this film, she had range: she was quite magical, menacing, fascinating all rolled into one. For me, “Interview with the Vampire” is a great vampire film because it makes the argument that vampires have the capacity to choose to be good instead of just being one-dimensional fiends who crave blood and live for centuries. Although necessary to paint the nature of vampire, the gore, the violence, and the evil were secondary. It was consistent, thrilling, and very interesting.

In the Bedroom
★★★ / ★★★★

Sissy Spacek and Tom Wilkinson are poignant in this film. The best scenes are when they would fight with or without using words. Both cannot be any more opposite on the way they grieve, which made it all the more interesting. Even though the movie is more than two hours long, I was completely drawn to it because it made me root for the two main characters even if they deliberately decide to make decisions that could ultimately corrupt them. Nick Stahl is as charismatic as ever, and I completely believed his characters’ amiable nature. This film raises a lot of questions regarding morality and it’s worth pondering over even after the credits stopped rolling.

In the Land of Women
★★★ / ★★★★

I finally saw Adam Brody’s charm after watching this film. Even though a lot of critics thought that this movie was weak and contrived, I thought it was consistent in its focus and very funny at times. Each character had some sort of purpose, which I liked. And even though the dialogue may sound forced sometimes, it’s earnest so I’ve forgiven it and embraced it. In the end, I was more concerned with the movie’s heart–its intent–than the style. Somehow, I managed to care for the characters even if they were well-to-do people. I thought the pacing was pretty good and the running time was reasonable. It may not be a great movie that will be remembered for the years to come but it’s a nice movie to watch at night under your blankets.

In the Name of the Father (1993)
★★★ / ★★★★

Based on a true story, Daniel Day-Lewis stars as Gerry Colnon, an Irishman who was forced to confess and sentenced to jail for life for the bombing that killed five people in England. If that wasn’t enough, three of his friends, father, and his father’s friends were sentenced to jail as well. Emma Thompson plays the lawyer who struggled to expose the truth regarding the injustice that the British police and detectives have inflicted on the Irishmen. Day-Lewis absolutely blew me away. Despite his actions that involved petty crimes shown in the beginning of the film, I could immediately tell that there was something more interesting underneath his persona. Whenever I looked into his eyes, I felt as thought there was a story, which involved a lot of hurt, that he desperately wanted to cover up. A lot of it came out when he and his father (Pete Postlethwaite) shared a prison cell for the first time; Day-Lewis brought up a lot of things that he thought made him the way he was (mainly experiences from his childhood). That particular scene was so revealing and hurtful at the same time so I couldn’t help but connect with it. Yet despite the anger and outburst, I felt a genuine love between the characters. Jim Sheridan, the director, told the story in such a concise manner so I felt like I wasn’t watching a two-hour-plus film at all. In fact, I wanted to know more about certain details of their ordeal, especially the detective work that Thompson’s character had gone through. With such a complex and compellingly human story like this, it could have easily fallen apart with all the Hollywood banalities. “In the Name of the Father” expertly balanced and eventually fused the political battles and personal demons so it offered a very powerful character study. I also think that this is still a very important film today because the issue of torture for information regarding the war in the Middle East is still not settled. While watching this film, I kept remembering (with utter disbelief) the time when I was still young and had complete trust in the government. The movie makes a thesis that sometimes people of power use the law as a mask in order to fulfill their jobs so they can look good in the eyes of the citizens. However, somewhere along the way, they completely lose track of who they are and how to do their jobs with honor so they start digging their own graves and try to take everyone else with them. This is a beautiful but haunting picture that deserves to be seen by anyone interested in human drama.

In the Realm of the Senses
★★★ / ★★★★

Writer and director Nagisa Oshima tells the story of a former-prostitute-turned-maid’s (Eiko Matsuda) and her employer’s (Tatsuya Fuji) sexual obsession with each other. After Matsuda sees Fuji making love with his wife, something inside her changes–it is as if she has to have him no matter what the cost. When the two eventually sleep together, they begin to spend pretty much every minute in bed together as they experiment with their sexuality, sometimes in front of other people. I liked that this film really tried to push the boundary between art and pornography. While it did show certain body parts that a “normal” picture would not normally show, it was different from pornography because it had a story to tell: the repercussions of surrendering to one’s desires without ever having to think of the consequences. To me, even though this was released in 1976, it is still very relevant today, especially in college campuses, due to the high rate of casual hook-ups or one night stands. One can never really know what one is getting into by inviting another person into one’s life–may it be for sexual purposes or otherwise. Disease is one of the first things that comes to mind (or should come to mind) when one engages in random hook-up, but psychology should also come into the equation. I’m not saying that people with mental disorders are always violent (they are not). I’m referring to people’s fetishisms and what they are willing to do to maximize their pleasure. In this film, the two lovers eventually tried to suffocate each other for one reason: it felt good. Other issues that were explored include excess, sadism, masochism, traditional gender roles and transgressions of societal norms. While most people may get lost in its graphic portrayal of sex, one should really try to look at what’s underneath because it’s that much more rewarding. “In the Realm of the Senses” is indeed a classic and should be seen and remembered by film-lovers because it’s one of the first motion pictures that tried to tread the fine line between art and pornography and was successful at it.

In the Shadow of the Moon
★★★★ / ★★★★

I was deeply touched by this movie because even though I wasn’t alive back when it all happened, this film made me feel like I was right there. It also made me wish that I lived in the 60’s because everything was happening: the war, the fight for the rights of all kinds of minorities, the commencement of the rise of technology… And this film is also special because I’ve NEVER seen a footage of mankind’s landing on the moon prior to watching this gem even though YouTube is available to everyone. I’ve heard rumors that the moon landing didn’t really exist so I guess, in a way, I unconsciously chose not to see any of it due to the fear of me believing such rumors. But this film completely convinced me that it did happen, not so much because of the footages, but the way the astronauts talked about their experiences. There was passion in their eyes, and by just talking about their experiences, I felt them reliving those special moments. I also learned something I’ve never heard of before: the fact that a speech was prepared just in case the mission failed. It found wrong but… darkly comic. I truly, truly enjoyed the last ten minutes of the film because it was so positive about this idea of universality, not just regarding outer space, but among different cultures. The astronauts are so appreciative of the Earth because they’ve seen how insignificant we really are and how fragile our planet is. I only wish more people are like them. This film made me want to go to the moon and enhance my perspective and spirituality.

In the Valley of Elah
★★★★ / ★★★★

This is one of the best anti-war films I’ve seen in a while. Tommy Lee Jones is excellent as a father who wants to find out who murdred his son and why. Jones is an expert when it comes to looking defeated and tired but he’s incendiary when he tries to keep his anger from bubbling over, spilling, and causing a flood. Charlize Theron is just as great as the detective that helps Jones. We root for her because she is not taken seriously by the guys at the police station; even though she’s far from perfect, she tries her best to solve crimes when no one would even bother. I’m impressed with this picture because it is so angry in a quiet way. It managed to keep me interested because it does not always show the audience what the characters see. Just when you think that the case is solved, it turns out to be otherwise so it becomes suspenseful. I’m also impressed with the images that this film presented: the flag, the videos from Iraq, the distraught soldiers, the empty land… Somehow, they all fit together because they pretty much symbolize the same thing. This film is consistently memorable scene-wise but if I were to pick the highlights, I would choose the scene where Jones tells the story of David and Goliath to Theron’s son, Susan Sarandon’s heartbreaking reaction when she finally sees her son’s remains, the revelation of what truly happened with Jones’ son, and the last scene. Anger and sadness are the two emotions that drive this film. By the end of the film, we realize that there are no easy answers no matter how many times we go over the facts. Even though the case is “solved,” there is no solace because there is nothing that can replace a life.

Intolerable Cruelty (2003)
★★ / ★★★★

Joel Coen directs this story about a gold-digger (Catherine Zeta-Jones) and a divorce lawyer’s (George Clooney) mind games. The two seemingly like each other despite their bickering but it is really difficult to define their relationship because they always have something up their sleeves (sometimes with the aid of lucky coincidences). I did enjoy the first half of this picture because it was silly and it embraced its screwball nature. However, somewhere in the second half, I grew tired of it mainly because the once astute two lead characters became simple caricatures not worth liking. I kept trying to convince myself there was something more about them other than their scamming ways but I was disappointed that there wasn’t. I know that the Coen brothers have a proclivity for irony but there is such a thing as too much irony. This film is a fine example of the latter so it became convoluted instead of focused, smug instead of welcoming, unfunny instead of dryly funny. I did, however, enjoy the supporting actors such as Cedric the Entertainer, Edward Herrmann, Richard Jenkins, Billy Bob Thornton and Geoffrey Rush. But their presence alone did not save this heavy-handed movie about two bickering infantile adults who have nothing better to do than to make each other’s lives miserable. I liked Zeta-Jones and Clooney’s acting during the first half because it was easy to tell that they were having fun with their characters. However, in the second half, I believe they crossed the line between being funny and trying too hard to be funny but actually failing at it. In the end, I wondered what happened to the power the Coen brothers usually had in their films. But I suppose great directors have their failures as well. Don’t get me wrong, this is not a bad movie. It’s simply a mediocre product given the expectations that usually come in a Coen brothers picture. It was too quirky for its own good when it really should have been working on its substance.

Into the Wild
★★★★ / ★★★★

The only regret I have is not catching this film in theaters. If I had, this easily would have been on my Top 10 Films of 2007 list. I would like to start off by giving kudos to Emile Hirsch for his completely captivating performance. He won me over just a few months ago in “The Mudge Boy” and I cannot believe this is the same guy from the fun yet sophomoric “The Girl Next Door.” I’ve seen all of his films and this is his most mature film to date, alongside “Imaginary Heroes” and “Alpha Dog.” He’s definitely someone that everyone needs to watch out for because he’s building quite a repertoire. He’s got “Speed Racer” and “Milk” coming up; the latter I have high expectations for now that he’s proven himself as a serious actor. In this film, he has completely embraced his character, not just psychologically but physically as well, to the point where I started asking, “How the hell did he pull that off?!” I love that the film is not just about one thing; it’s not just about Christopher McCandless, or family dynamics, or the people one meets on the road, or the life lessons learned (or not learned). It’s about all of those elements combined which made it reach a completely new, raw and captivating level. My favourite scenes are with Hal Holbrook because everything felt sadder, happier yet heavier, and lighter at the same time (he deserves the Oscar nomination). There was that one scene when Hirsch and Holbrook sat on this hill and Holbrook says, “When you forgive, you love. And when you love, God’s light shines upon you.” And suddenly the clouds parted and the sunlight fell upon them. I’m not a religious person but that really got to me though I don’t know exactly why… or for way too many reasons. For me, it’s not about a sign that God or a higher power exists–it’s more about the message of what was said and what was left unsaid between the characters, between the landscapes and those that live in and on them, between the film and the audience. I understand that a lot of people decided to shy away from this picture because of its two-and-a-half hour running time. Some of my friends did and I admit that I was really annoyed by that. (Which proves this is not for everyone.) I mean, if one can spend three hours doing absolutely nothing, why not take a risk at something that could potentially enhance one’s way of thinking? But there’s no hard feelings because, in a way, it made it that much more special since someone did stick with me and by the time the movie ended, I felt emotionally richer. The movie also had an underlying message regarding people that choose to stick by you no matter what, whether you’ve known them for a long time or not. I feel like this movie is about pretty much everything and it felt so right and down-to-earth. I am so glad to have had the honor of watching this film. Sean Penn is a great director and I’ll be looking forward to his future directing endeavors. “Into the Wild” reminded me and redefined my reason for falling in love with motion pictures.

Invasion, The (2007)
★★★ / ★★★★

Nicole Kidman is usually an ice queen (in a good way) but it’s nice to see her here as a vulnerable mother whose sole goal is to save her son. I did like the style of the film–a bit distant and cold but not too much; I found the scenes where the filmmakers would shoot in wide spaces to be both lonely and scary. There were a lot of eerie scenes so I don’t know what the critics are complaining about. I did care for the characters and I found their “scientific” explanations about the alien lifeform to be fascinating. I think the problem with remakes or interpretations is that people have the tendency to compare them to the original. I don’t do that most of the time because, in my opinion, one has to let a film stand on its own. So, I found myself sitting back and enjoying what this film has to offer.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
★★★ / ★★★★

I decided to watch this film because critics cannot help but label “The Invasion,” starring Nicole Kidman, as an abomination. Well, I’m glad as saw this movie not because I thought it was better than “The Invasion,” but the fact that it’s a completely different interpretation of what was happening. This one is more focused on the paranoia than the disease itself, which I thought reflected the late 70’s. Regardless of the dated feel, I felt like the actors delivered strong performances. The special effects are not bad at all and the story kept me interested. My only minor complaint is that it is almost two hours long. By the time the ending arrived, I was exhausted. They could’ve cut some of the exposition a bit, although I think that’s one of the reasons why it’s not your typical horror film. Usually, horror films go right for the kill. Still, this movie inspired me to rent the original. If one wishes to watch a picture with a big creepiness factor, this one is a winner.

Invisible, The
★★ / ★★★★

I really like the first twenty minutes or so up until the character “died” (or whatever the hell happened to him). From there, it quickly became about a rich emo kid that’s really unhappy about his home life because his mother doesn’t give him enough love or cares about him (or something or other). Somehow, we’re supposed to relate to that. I didn’t buy it at all because one, his father died five years ago and most people would’ve moved on; two, his mother isn’t that bad; three, he ended up relying on his “killer” to find his body. Sounds confusing? Well, it kind of is but that’s supposedly okay because it’s a supernatural thriller. If the film had retained its great focus (as I said, the first twenty minutes of the movie), it could’ve been a really good movie about existentialism. Plus, the main character’s poetry isn’t half bad. I would’ve liked to hear much more of it. The lesson I took away from this movie is that emo kids don’t have interesting stories to tell. (Okay, I think you get the picture that I hate emo kids.)

Iron Man (2008)
★★★★ / ★★★★

This film met my expectations and more. It’s nice to see a superhero film, other than the “Batman” franchise, to feature a not-quite-so-young protagonist–someone who’s had experience, who’s aged, and who’s extremely conflicted. Robert Downey Jr. is perfectly casted because he exudes passion and intelligence. Not only that, he has this fascinating edginess mixed with comedic snarkiness. I’ve enjoyed his other films because of those features and I’m glad to see that those are highlighted in this picture. The film’s core is not its action scenes. It’s more focused on how Iron Man emerged. Granted, I’m not as familiar with the Iron Man universe as I am with “Batman” or “X-Men” so I don’t know how accurately that universe is portrayed. Still, as a stand-alone film, it’s really very good and deserving of a wide audience. This sets the mark of the summer blockbuster season. I’m almost certain that this will have a sequel two or three years from now. Hopefully, the things that are only mildly explored will be featured and the unanswered questions will be answered.

Italian Job, The (2003)
★★★ / ★★★★

I saw this movie back in 2003 but I find it amazing that I don’t remember anything about it except that one tunnel scene near the end. So, I decided to watch it the second time and was reminded of how much I liked it the first time. I like that this isn’t the kind of caper film that takes itself too seriously. The tone of the picture is very light–it has that laid back, vacation feel that makes me want to go outside and frolic with nature. The characters of Mark Wahlberg, Charlize Theron, Jason Statham, Seth Green, and Mos Def are very funny in their own ways (I loved the Napster jokes!) but also very smart which makes them that much more interesting. I don’t know if I completely bought Edward Norton as the villain but I felt that he had fun with his character so I played along with it. And I must say that I’ve never seen MINI Coopers look so cool prior to this film. There were two highlights: the heist in Italy and the battle between the Wahlberg’s group and Norton on the streets (and underneath!) Los Angeles. Those scenes were so exciting, I tried not to blink. There were definitely scenes that made me think, “Wow! That’s so smart!” so not only was I interacting with it, I was also having a good time. I’ve always been a sucker for caper movies that involves gathering a group of people with disparate abilities with one goal at hand so it wasn’t at all hard for me to embrace this film. Luckily, this one is entertaining and fast-paced.

I Think I Love My Wife
★★★ / ★★★★

Finally! A smart African-American romantic comedy that doesn’t disappoint because it has something genuine to say about long-term relationships. Even though the following statement will not say a lot, I am proud to say it: I’ve never seen Chris Rock so mature in a role… ever. I actually loved him in this movie because he played a real, conflicted husband who just happens to be going through a marriage problem, not just some fool that babbles on and on. Another way this is different from most romantic comedies out there is that this is a story about an African-American family that explicitly tries to integrate itself into the white, dominant society. I found that to be honest because I know families like that. It moved me because it reminded me that we are still living in a world where nothing is really fully accepted. It’s so refreshing (and an honour) to view a film like this one. Kudos to all the actors and filmmakers of this movie.

I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With
★★★ / ★★★★

This is a really short full feature film but it was really enjoyable. Pretty much each scene has something funny about it because it’s raw and honest. The movie comments on pretty much everything: the hypocrisy between the way people think and the way people act, the showbiz industry, relationships, and family. The pace is very brisk so it was never boring. Sarah Silverman is a bowl of sunshine. Every time she’s on screen, I have this silly smile on my face because I constantly anticipate for her to say or do something funny. And she delivers. Unfortunately, what prevents this movie from becoming great is that it could feel a little choppy. Choppy in a way that it feels more like it belongs on television than in the cinema. With better flow, even if it means adding an extra ten or fifteen minutes to the film, would’ve elevated this film. Still, I’m recommending this movie because it really did make me laugh and feel good about myself. Plus, I don’t see a lot of indie comedies out there that are both good-hearted and works in pretty much every level. If one wants to see comedians play characters in a movie, I’d say go see this one.