"Super 8" Review

The theatre is packed wall to wall.  The smell of popcorn, and the sound of my feet sticking to the floor from years of spilt cola and candy fills my senses.  The silhouettes of the audience are all I can see in the theatre as the lights of the Vista theatre fade and the projector fires up.   Nostalgia sets in as the coming attractions and the classic 70’s “lobby snacks” promo I have come to love dance across the screen.  Suddenly, the “Amblin Entertainment” logo “fades-in” on screen, and I’m twelve years old all over again, while the audience settles as the nostalgic feeling of J.J. Abrams “Super 8” brings their inner-child out.

In a summer inundated with super-hero films, sequels, prequels, transforming robots, and more pirates, “Super 8” is the movie that gives hope that “Hollywood” hasn’t totally forgotten that “story” still matters. 

Set in the late 60’s, “Super 8” follows the story of Joe Lamb and his group of friends as they set out to use their summer freedom to make the perfect zombie movie.  Joe and Company, led by Charles (Joe’s best friend and director of their film) goes to great lengths to capture their story on classic 8mm film.  In an attempt to add more “production value” to their story, the gang sneaks out past curfew and films on location at a train station on the outskirts of town.  And this is where the film really takes off.  While filming their scene the most spectacular train crash and one of the most amazing action pieces I’ve ever seen put to film unfolds; unleashing an unknown monster upon the small town of Lillian, and introduces us to the second half of this story.  As the group and our Monster’s path begin to intertwine, the story thickens.  The U.S. air force, led by Colonel Nelec (played by another proverbial “that guy”, Noah Emmerich), are hot on Joe’s trail in hunting down their lost property, and silencing anyone that gets in their way.  Meanwhile, Joe’s father, the town’s curious deputy, must balance his paternal instincts with his ability to cope with the unexplained events taking place in Lillian.

Like Joe’s father, curiosity and intrigue have captured my imagination, and I’m glued to every frame of this instant classic.  Each scene is perfectly captured.  Joe and his band of misfits symbolize all my lost innocence and remind me of all the classic films I grew up loving: “E.T.”, “Jaws”, “Star Wars”, and “Indiana Jones”.  They all share this bit of magic, a bit of the “unexplained”, but that’s why it works so well.  When we are introduced to the creature, there is no attempt to over deliver on the promise of the creature or try to explain the reasons behind it’s motivations; it just is.  The intense scenes of the creature are juxtaposed with Joe and friends’ continued pursuit of their summer movie.  The contrast between the two storylines works brilliantly to balance the intensity of the monster and humor and charm of the adolescence. 

The performances Abrams gets out of his young stars is on par with “Stand By Me”.  There are some real talents born on screen here, the likes of which we have not seen since River Phoenix.  All of the ancillary characters bring a real sense of urgency and intrigue to the screen.  Another refreshing aspect of the cast is there are no big names; no ego’s to over power the other characters on screen.  It’s just pure character actors doing what they do best.

Abrams’ “Spielbergian” direction and camera movement contribute to the feel of an 80’s genre film.  Combine with his ability to keep the audience in suspense; one feels as if Abrams has somehow filled this void we’ve all been missing in movies for fifteen years; one that Spielberg, Reiner, and Zemekis once filled in our hearts.  We would only be so lucky if there were more filmmakers willing to make such original stories.

“Super 8” touches on every aspect of what makes a movie great: budding romance, humor, mystery, action, and great visuals that culminate into this rare popcorn flick that we get maybe every four summers.  It’s not trying to win Oscars, or bombard us with exposition to explain the unexplainable.  It’s purely focused on classic story motifs and entertainment.  Run, don’t walk to the theatre to see this gem, it may be the only great choice you make at the box office all summer.  4.5 out of 5.

"Transcendent Man" Review

I first heard of this documentary from a friend and recently had a chance to catch up with it on Netflix.  This is one of the most fascinating docs I’ve seen in quite some time.  The subject matter alone is enough for anyone to take a look at this one.  “Transcendent Man” is the true story of designer, inventor, and genius, Ray Kurtzweil.  Kurtzweil was a child prodigy in the science world at age 15.  At 15 he had already designed a computer that could not only mimic, but also create original piano pieces.  It isn’t enough that Ray accomplished this feat at 15, but he did it in the 60’s.  THE 60's!  I mean this is the dawn of the first computers, you know the ones that took up entire rooms, sometimes entire floors of technology buildings.

I have to say I was hooked.  Ray went on to greatness starting several companies, selling them, and becoming a millionaire several times over.  There is a good chance you have probably used one of Ray's inventions and didn’t even know it.  Ever used a scanner?  Well, you can thank Ray for that one.  But this doc is so much more than a profile of Ray's genius.  This movie embarks on exploring some really tough questions.  It is more or less about the increasing rate at which technology spreads and increases exponentially over time.  In other words remember that Iphone 4 you just bought, well it will be obsolete in five months, just like the many other technologies we depend on and surround ourselves with.  

Ray's obsession with this idea leads us to an even larger idea that he predicts is within our reach.  The idea of the "singularity", or a point in which humans and technology will be one, where technology has expanded and improved upon itself so many times that "we", as humans, are no longer making the decisions, but rather having decisions made for us by the machines we created.  At least I think this is what it is about.  The idea is fascinating, but I’ll be honest a little over my head.  It’s like trying to wrap you mind around the idea of infinity or a black hole.  It’s so much larger than your self that it’s hard to get a grasp on it.  On the surface this documentary explores the idea in question, but under the surface the movie’s real focus is how this idea, along with Kurtzweil’s inability to cope with his own mortality, stems from the death of his father. 

This is where the doc really grabbed me.  It was fascinating to see how Ray became consumed with saving himself, and how his father’s death was the driving force behind his own aspirations.  Kurtzweil, like many geniuses, borders on the insane.  He believes in his own theories so blindly, that no person can convince him otherwise.  The opinions and ideas of others fall by the wayside as he continues his pursuit of “immortality”.  Even at the film’s climax, at which Kurtzweil experiences a coronary bypass, Ray’s beliefs are hardly shaken into reality.  In a lot of ways it’s like watching a train wreck where everyone on the train thinks they’re going to survive. 

The doc is fascinating, engrossing, and very well made.  It is a great character study, and for a “sci-fi head” like myself a truly great experience.  That’s why I’m giving the “Transcendent Man” a 4 out of 5.

"X-Men First Class" Review

WARNING SOME SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!

It’s been five years since we’ve visited Charles and his school of gifted youngsters.  And, let’s be honest, after 2006’s “X-Men: The Last Stand” we needed a break.  Brian Singer and his team did an incredible job building a successful franchise, and topping their first x-men film with “X2”, the perfect sequel.  It took Ratner only one stab at his “X” film to tear down what Singer built upon.  Now, Mathew Vaughn, with the help of Singer, is trying his hand at the “X” franchise with “X-Men: First Class”. 

I’m not going to lie, I had high expectations for this film.  It even managed to make my top 5 most anticipated films of summer 2011 in the number two slot.  Also, I’m quite fond of Vaughn’s previous work, in particular “Layer Cake”, and rather enjoyed “Kick Ass” despite its plot holes.  Not to mention the fact that “First Class” has two of young Hollywood’s finest actors, Michael Fassbinder and James McAvoy, headlining this band of misfits.  On paper this film is a winning formula, Solid director + great talent + great mythology = good movie.  However, I might be alone on this one, but it just didn’t quite deliver on the promise of the premise.  Don’t get me wrong, this is a decent effort, but one of the major problems of a prequel is that it must follow and flow into an established mythology.  And, “First Class” attempts to do this, but it just seemed hurried to me.  It’s unfortunate, because you don’t want to leave a bunch of loose ends untidy, but it seems with a movie like this you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

One half of the story is really quite good.  The story focuses mostly on Erik Lenscher, aka Magneto’s, origin for the first act of the film.  We start off where the first X-men film did, with Magneto as a boy in a Nazi Concentration camp.  Soon we are introduced to Kevin Bacon, who dons an astonishingly good German accent, as a mutant named Sebastian Shaw.  Shaw, like Magneto, is dead set on a war between humans and the growing mutant population.  Sebastian is also responsible for the death of Lenscher’s family and ultimately creating the mutant we later call Magneto.   And, this is where the film gets interesting.  In a lot of ways “First Class” is this epic revenge tale following Magneto as he tracks down the man responsible for birthing all this rage and hate he carries inside him.  Fassbinder is truly excellent in this role; his emotions are raw and tangible on screen.  He does an amazing job of making the audience sympathize with his character, so much that we forget the evil that he will eventually bring down upon the human race.  Magneto’s character and story arc were so engrossing, I would have much-preferred two hours delving into his character than what we ended up with.  Unfortunately, the other characters in this film are far less interesting.  Although McAvoy is excellent as Xavier, he just doesn’t have the storied background to get me engaged in his character.  Charles seems to be a silver spooned prodigy, having everything handed to him, including his unique gifts.  The other characters in the film suffer from a lack of screen time as well.  Now this is a common problem when you have a large cast of characters, it’s hard to determine whom the audience will identify more with, and who should just fall by the wayside.  Mystique, played by Jenifer Lawrence, is fascinating, but feels overshadowed by her more interesting co-stars.  And, it’s not that she does a poor job, in fact I found her performance solid, it’s just that McAvoy and Fassbinder are simply that good. 

I think my biggest problem with “First Class” goes back to my issue that the story felt hurried.  That there wasn’t a lot of time to show these intricate relationships develop.  I just didn’t “buy” this friendship between the two opposing viewpoints.  This problem continues throughout the film.  The characters only seem to have known each other for the briefest of periods, but change “sides” and their minds so quickly that it just seemed forced.  Characters that are enemies for the entire film, then suddenly play nice together, as if united by their common interests, but just seconds before were willing to tear each other apart.  It’s simply just too convenient.  It’s as if the producers said, “Well we can’t have that, because in the other x-men film these two are supposed to be enemies, better think of some poor filmic device to cover out tracks.”

On another note the action pieces are decent, and they seem to have real consequences.  You do get a sense that while these people obtain extraordinary gifts; they still bleed like you and me.

Overall I think “First Class” was one of the better films I’ve seen this summer, but there really isn’t much competition out there.  I have a feeling that the public wants to see a good movie so badly, that an average one is a welcome relief.  My theory is, much like when “Source Code” hit theatres, there just wasn’t anything else out there that could compete.  “First Class” suffers from the same fate, there isn’t whole lot out there to give it a run for its money, so it stands as the best “Hollywood” film in theatres.  So without further delay I’m giving “X-Men: First Class” a 3 out of 5 atoms.

"Tree of Life" Review

I’m not really sure where to begin this review.  I’m still trying to soak up everything.  Piecing together the different astronomical events make compose “Tree of Life” is daunting in itself.  If you are familiar with Malick’s work then you should have some grasp of how this movie is going to be edited together, but I assure you, all of your revisiting of “The New World”, “The Thin Red Line”, or even “Badlands” can’t prepare you for this film.  This is by far Malick’s most ambitious work to date.  His unique blend of nature, story, and character is pushed to the extreme in this almost Kubrikian tale of a post WWII Texas family. 

The film explains that there are two ways in which to live you life, through “Grace” or “Nature”.  I’m not going to pretend I really know what this means.  I’m not sure which “way” we are even witnessing.  TOL poses a lot of tough questions for its audience:  Why are we here?  Where did we come from? , and perhaps, Where are we going?  However, I don’t think it answers any of them, but that’s a good thing. Instead TOL asks us to reflect on these ideas.  It would be pretty self-indulgent if Malick did in fact answer any one of these questions.  This movie, at least for me, does make me reflect on my own up brining and, more so my own Father’s.  It puts a typical 1950’s family on display and their attempt to co-existence.  These scenes of the 50’s family archetype juxtaposed against stunning visuals of the universe, creation, life evolving, the big bang, the earth coming into form; all of it seeming to lead us to think is this the proper way in which we too should have evolved?  But, is this the right path?  There are so many beautiful moments in this film.  Emanuel Lubezki, the cinematographer, is a true master of his craft.  Every frame is perfect.  And, It’s this perfection at times that makes it so hard to watch.  Watching these perfect images of this family deteriorate is difficult to stomach because it is simply so beautiful to watch.  It is quite an esoteric journey.  I’m very much on the fence on this one.  I think it’s a film you have to experience for yourself in order to reach your own conclusion.  I hate to be like humpty dumpty, but that’s the only advice I can give on this particular film.

I feel that while I’m writing this review, I’m trying to process so much of what I have seen that it is difficult to even make a coherent critique of this film.  So I’ll digress and talk about the performances.

Brad Pitt is really quite good as over-bearing father, Mr. Obrien.  He is strict and unflinching as he instills his will upon the other members of the family be it through his words or physical actions.  As I sat and watched him enforce his rule on the innocence on screen, I couldn’t help but be taken over with fear myself, but thankful that he wasn’t my father.  Jessica Chastain is also very good, as the selfless mother, trying to keep the balance between her role as mother and dutiful wife.  The regret and fear she constantly feels is captured well in her reactions and facial expressions.  I think my favorite performance was Hunter McCracken, who played young Jack.  Hunter does an amazing job conveying his fear and hatred toward his father.  The tension Jack feels in his father’s presence is tangible.  This young actor gave a truly remarkable performance, and after Hollywood gets wind of this performance I’m sure we will see young Hunter more in the future.

Again if you agree or disagree with my opinion consider posting a response.

Top 5 Character actors of all Time

Let me just say this was a very tough list to piece together.  There are so many talented and truly great character actors to choose from, how do you narrow it down to just five?  It’s like choosing your favorite bite of ice cream, there all so good!  Another inherent problem with this list is determining, who qualifies as a “character” actor and isn’t just a star in their own right.  Example, Brendon Gleeson is a great character actor, but is almost too notable to be considered.   I like to think of a character actor as one, whose face you recognize, but can’t put a name to it.  You know the type I mean.  Chances are you have probably uttered these words at the silver screen or at a coffee shop with friends: “Oh it’s that guy, I love that guy” or “You know the one I mean, he’s in all those Cohen brothers films”.  These actors are true masters of their craft and selfless.  Performing to the same degree if not better than the major stars with which they share the screen.  They often make the scene memorable or propel their co-stars to perform to the best of their ability.  And so, with that I give you my top five selfless actors starting at number five and working down to my number one.

(CLICK ON THE LINKS TO VIEW PHOTOS OF THE ACTORS)

5.) My number five has been in such greats as Braveheart, Sin City, Gladiator, Smokin Aces, The Game, Ratcacther, and has worked with some of the finest director’s in the industry.  If you said Brendon Gleeson, you’d be wrong, it’s Scottish born actor, Tommy Flanagan.  Flanagan’s unique facial scars and on screen talents have made him an unforgettable actor, that has always brought his “A” game to the screen.  Whether he’s playing a random henchman, a loyal servant to a general turned slave, or battling the English alongside William Wallace, Flannigan never disappoints.  And, that’s why he’s my number five.

4.) My number four is equally as notable as my number one.  He has put his stamp on not just the silver screen, but the small screen as well.  He got his start on the day time soap “As the World Turns” and continues to light up prime time with a recurring role in the smash hit “Prison Break”.  He’s been in my favorite heist film, “HEAT”, earning him great admiration from director Chris Nolan, and a small part in his 2008 masterpiece, “The Dark Knight”.  Of course I’m speaking of William Fichtner.  Let’s run down a few of Mr. Fichtner’s notable films: Crash, The Dark Knight, Heat, Go, The Longest Yard, Malcolm X, Black Hawk Down, Armageddon, Contact, and the list goes on.  One of my favorite performances was his portrayal of an undercover cop in “Go”.  Comedic timing, awkward comments, and twitchy nature made him the most memorable character in the film.  William’s career spans several decades, and his body of work is no doubt impressive.  Because of his longevity and ability to enhance the performances of the actors on screen with him, William has earned my number four spot and the proverbial, “That Guy” award. 

3.) I was first introduced to my number three actor in one of the greatest science fiction films of all time, where he played, Parker, one of the Nostromo’s expendable crew, in Ridley Scott’s, “Alien”.  Later he played disgruntled factory worker, Smokey James, in the brilliant sleeper hit “Blue Collar” written and directed by “Taxi driver” scribe, Paul Schrader.  He then went on to star with Robert Redford in “Brubaker” and even managed to share the screen with the governator himself, Arnold Swartzeneger in the cheesy action flick, “Running Man”.  Yes, Yaphet Kotto has run the gauntlet (pun intended) and brought us some of the most memorable moments in cinema history.  For those of you, who have not seen “Blue Collar” I highly, recommend you put it on your queue.  It’s a hard one to find on DVD these days, but well worth your time.  Kotto’s presence on screen is strong and tangible.  He brings a sense of realism to any of the characters he plays, whether he’s trapped on an alien craft, or trapped in the social class of “middle America”.  That’s why Yaphet Kotto breaks in to the number three spot on my list.

2.)  I’m just going to come out and say it.  My number two is Peter Stormore.  Now, I know what you are asking.  “Who in the hell is Peter Stormore?”  All I have to do to jolt your memory into working order, is describe what I believe could be one of the most memorable moments in film history.  And yes, I realize I have said this before, but let me set this up for you.  It’s a blistery cold day in northern Wisconsin.  You’re tired, pregnant, and have your gun in your hand.  You hear a strange motor sound emanating from the rear of the house you are investigating.  You peak around the side into the backyard only to run into Peter Stormore feeding his partner in crime, Steve Buscemi, into a wood chipper.  This scene, of course, is the finally to one of Joel and Ethan Cohen’s many masterpieces, “Fargo”.  After “Fargo” Peter was on my radar, a unique look, a strange array of characters, and an ability to appear in endless Cohen bros. films.  He played Uli, a German nihilist in “The Big L”, the devil, Lucifer himself, in “Constantine”, a small bit part in Spielberg’s “The Lost World”, a derange surgeon in another one of my favorite sci-fi films, “Minority Report”, and possible his best role as, Slippery Pete, in an unforgettable episode of “Seinfeld” where he attempted to battery power a “Frogger” arcade game in order to save Geoge Costanza’s only amazing feet of his life, the coveted high score slot.  For that alone Pete you made my number two.

1.) Although my number one has only been in five feature films, each is a masterpiece, and his performances are superb in all of them.  What is that old adage?  “There are no small parts, only small actors”.  Well my number one is the essence of that statement.  Every one of his choices was carefully considered, every motivation examined, even the little idiosyncrasies of his characters were carefully thought out.  His five features include: “The Godfather”, “The Godfather: Part II”, “Deerhunter”, “Dog Day Afternoon”, and Coppola’s, “The Conversation”.  I of course am referring to everyone’s neurotic older brother, Sonny, played by late great, John Cazele.  Cazele is one of the greats.  If you ask anyone of the actor’s that has had the pleasure of sharing the screen with him, they will have nothing to say but praise.  Cazele has played some of the most memorable and important characters in film history.  His wirery and sometimes haggard mustache along with that shrill nasally voice are all part of his odd appeal.  His unique appearance combined with his incredible talents forced his co-stars to elevate their own abilities, because if they hadn’t his presence on screen would over shadow them.  Cazele is one of the rare character actors, which if he had not passed so early in his career there’s no telling how many shiny gold statues he would have brought home.  And, for these reasons are why John Cazele is my number one character actor of all time.

And, there you have it my top five character actors of all time.  Now don’t get me wrong there are many others that could have and probably should have made my list.  Here are some of my honorable mentions that didn’t quite make the cut:  J.K Simmons, Michael Rooker, J.T. Walsh, Frank Whaley, Bob Gunton, and Clancy Brown.  Below are photos of all the actors who made my list.  You can find out more about all of them on IMDB.com.  Finally, if you agree or disagree with my opinion consider writing a response below.  I look forward to hearing from you.

Sophia Coppola's "Somewhere" Review

WARNING SOME SPOILERS!!!

“Somewhere”, directed by, Sophia Coppola explores the life of international movie star, Johnny Marco.  In this fictional biography Johnny Marco, played by Stephen Dorf, is a successful actor, womanizer, and nervous father.  Not a lot happens in “Somewhere”, but that’s not to say that it isn’t interesting or void of drama.  Marco is a pretty self absorbed actor; for example: the first time we meet Marco he’s in his hotel room watching twin sisters dance erotically to entertain him.  Now, most men could only dream of a fantasy like this, but Marco is only slightly entertained by the notion.  Soon he is fast asleep and the women slink out quietly back to whatever strip club they call home.  After viewing the entire film, it became apparent to me that this scene serves as a microcosm.  I mean think about it, if you’re rich, successful, and every woman “wants you”, it’s hard to find ways to stimulate your senses.  Even the way Coppola presents this scene to us screams “mundane”.  It’s not shot like a rap video with hip-hop beats.  It’s presented raw, and uninteresting in a simple two shot.  I think Coppola makes an interesting statement about what it means to be a “celebrity” and really delves into the psyche of a person that has lost all sense of how “normal” people live.  She’s exploring the idea, how do you go on living if everything is within your reach?  One might feel purposeless.  Drive and motivation is all but gone for Marco.  Another interesting thing about Marco is he’s not a crazy over the top celebrity like Lindsey Lohan, he’s more like a Dicaprio: smooth, courteous, and bored out of his skull.  He’s just counting the days, and we, as the audience, are too.

The movie meanders from this point on; out of one scene and into the next; each scene a snippet of Marco’s daily activities.  However, things change quickly for Marco when his teenage daughter, Cleo, played by Ellie Fanning is dropped off to spend some time with her estranged father.  It is clear that, while the two enjoy each other’s company, neither really has a grasp on just “who” the other really is.  They step precariously through their lives, almost as if they are feeling the other out for the first time. In some ways it’s quite charming.  Even the “wrench” that Cleo represents in Marco’s life isn’t very dramatic.  Marco and her play guitar hero, lounge by the pool, and have fun trips to Italian movie premieres.  But, there’s no real drama, no sense of urgency, but I think this is what Coppola is going for.  The only real tension is the way women come and go out of Marco’s life with ease, and the only real question this raises is: How does this affect Cleo’s perception of her father?

Some of my favorite moments are the ones with ordinary people approaching Marco.  There’s a great scene with a young starving actor, who asks Marco for advice.  He answer’s the striving actor’s question simply, but ultimately doesn’t care and really just want to be left alone so he can go hit on an attractive blond at the same party.  Other similar scenes include his interview with a foreign TV host while premiering his latest film in Italy.  Another simple awkward scene, where Marco clearly doesn’t understand the questions or the language, but it doesn’t even matter.  The interview is so trite and simple; any sound bite from Marco’s mouth is enough to keep the fans coming back for seconds. 

On the whole the performances are good.  Stephen Dorf does a nice job portraying the successful actor, and Ellie Fanning is good as his daughter Cleo.  The real star of this movie is the camera.  Its voyeuristic viewpoint and backstage pass to “A day in the life of Hollywood Royalty” is the real star of this movie.  Breaking down the barrier that separates the seat buyers from the seat fillers.  Despite the lack of a major plot, I found myself glued to this film.  It is definitely one that I was excited to see then wondered what happened to it.  I’m glad I had a chance to catch up with it on DVD, and would recommend it to those of you who are fans of Sophia’s.  If you want to check it out currently you can get it on netflix and your local movie rental house. 

Please if you agree or disagree with my opinion consider leaving a response.  I would love to hear from you.

Top 5 year's in Cinema since you've been alive. Here's my list:

A few ground rules before we begin.  I chose years based on the quality of the films that were released during the year in question.  I used IMDB to confirm release dates, and used theatrical release dates, not film festival premieres.  I tried to pick years that changed my perception, were ground breaking, or changed the film landscape as we know it.  The listing will begins with #5 and down to #1.  Order is important.  My top two picks were easy the rest was a real grudge match.


5.)  1991:  Those of you that know me.  Probably aren't surprised by this particular year. After all it has my favorite sci-fi film of all time released in it, T2.  A lot of other notable films that were released this year: Barton Fink, Backdraft, Boyz N the Hood, The Fisher King, Hook, Hot Shots, JFK, My Own Private Idaho, Point Break, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, The Rocketeer, The Silence of the Lambs, and Thelma and Louise.


Let's get this one out of the way, because like a crack addict, I'm already itching to get my fix.  James Cameron's masterpiece, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, is a film that excels in every aspect.  Cameron is a perfectionist and it shows here.  The level of detail, the performances, the story, everything culminates into a perfect science fiction film.  Not to mention that this is a sequel, and unlike almost every sequel it manages to not only meet the expectations of the original, but exceed it as well.  Can you ever imagine another movie in which Arnold's accent, his stiff acting style actual work to portray the character he is on screen.  Not to mention Linda Hamilton's performance, which in my opinion is nothing more than outstanding.  How many other films can you think of where one of your main characters is a strong, willful, and powerful female character.  She is perhaps more "badass" than Arnold in this film.  She's the mother every kid wishes they had when they were younger.  While most of us were playing ninja turtles and GI Joe, she was teaching John armed combat and how to rip-off ATMs. We've just scratched the surface of this one, but if I don't move on, then I'll just spend the whole post on it.  T2 a must for any fan.


Silence of the Lambs is another one I want to touch on.  This is perhaps another perfect film.  Superb acting, screenplay, directing, and visuals.  All culminating into one of only two films to sweep all five major categories at the oscars: Best Actor, Actress, Director, Screenplay, and Motion Picture.  This is a particularly notable feet considering how ridiculous and pointless the Oscars have become.  Hopkins is superb as Hannibal Lecture, a psychiatrist, who ate his patients.  Jodie Foster is excellent as the FBI trainee selected to garner Lecture's trust in discovering Buffalo Bill's identity.  The script is smart, clever, and keeps you in suspense till the last scene.  And, who can forget Ted Levine's haunting portrayal of Buffalo Bill, a serial killer denied several sex change operations and pieces together parts of his victims skin to make a full "woman suit".  This one is not for the squeamish, but stands out to me as another great reason why 1991 makes my list.


4.)  1994:  The year that gave us Mr. Tarantino's sophomore effort, "Pulp Fiction".  Among other classic greats in this year were: Forrest Gump, Quiz Show, Shallow Grave, True Lies, Legends of the Fall, Lion King, The Crow, Clerks, Blue Chips, Cobb, Leon: The Professional, and of course The Shawshank Redemption.


Undoubtedly for many of you Shawshank Redemption is high on your list.  It's high on mine too.  If you haven't seen it they run it on TNT, TBS, or WGN on the regular.  One of my favorite parts about the Shaw is Morgan Freeman's narration.  I could hand him anything to read, Dr. Suess books, an airline safety brochure, even the ingredients list on a box of Kix.  Yes, he's that good.  S.R. might be a perfect movie.  In in a lot of ways it is really a love story between two men of all things.  A love story like Papillion, that chronicles the lives of two prisoner's who find solace and comfort in each other in order to serve their time.  It's a powerful and moving masterpiece, the likes of which we will probably never see again.


Another one of my favorites that I have to touch on is Leon: The professional.  Luc Besson directed this modern day Lolita tale, while introducing us to one of my generations current great actresses, Natalie Portman.  The justaposition of innocent Matilda and the Hitman, Leon is a fascinating one.  Maybe my favorite aspect of this relationship is really how much Matilda is the grown-up , while Leon retains this child-like awe and wonder about him throughout the film.  This movie is another gritty film, that brings tears to my eyes to this day, due to the wonderful performances.




3.)  1995:  Not straying too far away, 95' was another great year in Cinema history.  I was 12, and not quite old enough to see most of the movies that made this a particularly great year.  However, there was one movie by an unknown production company that garnered my attention and my respect with each subsequent release, PIXAR's "Toy Story".  Another ground breaking film that paved the way for an entire generation of newly animated features that would exist only by unlimited imagination and "1's and"0's".  Without Pixar, where would we be?  Sure, Dreamworks probably would have come out with their animated brand of films, as well as Fox, but would either be as successful or as entertaining if it weren't for Pixar setting the bar for animated features year after year?  I think not.  Years later, after Toy Story's release, i revisited 1995 and discovered the following gems: Dead Man Walking, To Die For, Mallrats, Before Sunrise, Basketball Diaries, The Usual Suspects, Braveheart, and one of my personal favorites Michael Mann's, HEAT.


Heat alone is probably enough for me to put 1995 on my list.  I can't tell you how many times i've poured over this movie.  It is hands down one of the best character development films out there.  Mann know's just where to put his camera.  His instincts, like his character's, are sharp and exact.  This is a calculated, gritty, real film.  One of the few that brings tears to my eyes.  Not enough can be said about HEAT.


1995 was a great year in cinema.  One that for me could not be fully appreciated till later in life.  So, if you haven't had a chance to see some these great pieces of cinema history I suggest you get a Netflix subscription.


2.)  2007:  Coming off the heels of 2006, a ghastly year in cinema filled with maybe some of the worst titles, reboots, and possible the worst Pixar movie to date, Cars, 2007 roared into theaters full of pictures to entertain, stimulate, and enlighten the senses.  2006 was the year that gave us: Superman Returns, The Da Vinci Code, Mission Impossible 3, and even managed to kill the X-men franchise with a 3rd installment, by Mr. "no talent" himself, Brett Ratner.  2007, was a lot like the approaching Democratic party election.  After having a retard in office for 8 years, a bowl of Cheerios would suffice for the general public.  But, we were treated to more than just cheerios, we got served Cinnamon Toast Crunch, Pops, and a little Raisin Bran in one mythical bowl.  It had enough for everyone, it was sweet, salty, and chaulk full vitamins and mineral to stimulate the "thinkers" out there.


Let's do the rundown of notable films:  The Lookout, Black Snake Moan, Zodiac, Hot Fuzz, Knocked Up, Ratatouille, Rescue Dawn, Sunshine, 3:10 to Yuma, Eastern Promises, Into the Wild, Michael Clayton, and the two masterpieces of the year: No Contry for Old Men and There Will be Blood.


"No Country" is a strong enough movie in its own right to give enough weight to make this list, but then 2007 goes on, like a never ending day of Christmas.  Not only did you get a new bike, super nintendo, baseball glove, and puppy, but you also got that Red Rider carbon action b.b. gun you always wanted too, with "There Will be Blood".  PTA's direction has never been better in this new take on the western about an Oil Prospector stealing the dreams of a small town and destroying everyone around him.  Daniel Day Lewis' epic performance, which some consider the best ever put to celluloid, is more than enough for anyone to give this a viewing.  Beautiful production design, cinematography, and a superb score will keep you coming back for a second viewing.


1.)  1999:  This one is easy.  I can't think of a better year in cinema since I've been on this earth.  There are just too many great, groundbreaking films, and films that probably make your "favorites" in this bunch.  1999 was a magical year, that only comes once in a lifetime.  It was a like a throwback to the 70's, where experimentation, ingenuity, and great story telling came together to give us some of the best movies we had seen since the days of the film school generation.  All the usual suspects came to play that year.  The directors that would define cinema for my generation and every generation entering film school now.  Soderberg, Fincher, Jonze, O'Russell, Kubrick, Ball, Scosesse, Wachowski bros., Coppoala, and Mann just to name a few.  If you walk to your DVD rack right now (that is if you still have one) you probably have more films from this year in cinema than any other on your shelves.


Let's just go down the list a bit.  As it grows, you will be astonished:  American Beauty, Beautiful People, Being John Malkovich, Beyond the Mat, Boys Don't Cry, Brining out the Dead, Cider House Rules, Dogma, Election, Eyes Wide Shut, Fight Club, Girl Interrupted, Go, The Insider, Iron Giant, The Limey, Magnolia, The Matrix, Office Space, Sixth Sense, Summer of Sam, Three Kings, Toy Story 2, Trippin, and The Virgin Suicides.


And there's more... For those of you who remain skeptical here is a complete list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_in_film


I know what you are thinking.  "All these classics couldn't have come out in one year!"  Well...They did. And one classic that was a true experience i will never forget has been dissected, talked about and disputed countless times.  Personally, I was truly blown away by this one.  I hadn't felt this kind of anticipation and excitement since "Jurassic Park", as when i saw, "The Matrix".  I could spend hours peeling away the layers of this onion, but we don't have that kind of time.  Granted after many viewings since its release the Matrix does not have the same effect, but in the context, in the time, it was the movie that redefined filmmaking.  And, defined it so much that every other movie for the next two years would steal it's technique, its "cool factor", and overall aesthetic.


Throughout 99 I had similar experience with other films as well.  The "rebels of the back lot", as they were called, (coinded by Sharon Waxmen) were in full swing this year and kept pumping out masterpieces.  Three kings is one I have often revisited, and don't know if I can think of a better "golden fleece" tale out there.  Being John Malkovich was the first time I had been introduced to Charlie Kaufman, and his genius.  Then we had Tom Cruise, before he was "The Cruise", in the best performance of his career in PTA's Magnolia.  Aside from needing a desperate reduction in runtime, Magnolia was an engrossing film that kept you on the edge of your seat driven by an amazing score.


Well there you have it.  My top five years in cinema.  I could get lost talking about any one of these films for pages and pages.  I'm interested to hear your thoughts and feedback on my top 5.  If you agree or disagree I'd like to hear about it.

Hangover 2 Review:

The wolf-pack is back in the Hangover 2, and I'm not sure if that is a good thing.  The original cast returns as well as a few new faces, including Paul Giamati (who I believe replaced Mel Gibson during production).  Todd Phillips is once again in the director's chair, but why I'm not really sure.  Sure, it makes sense to have him direct a sequel to a franchise he co-created, but after seeing the film I think it would have been better off with a fresh set of eyes and open-mind.  I'm not saying that I dis-like Phillips, because in the past I've always enjoyed his films.  I have often made the comparison, under a lot of fire,  that Phillips is my generations "John Hughes".  I'm not saying he is as good or the same, but in a sense Phillips, like hughes, created the "Frat Pack", similar to the "Brat Pack".  Phillips employs the same comedic faces in most of his movies such as: Vince Vaghn, Zack Galifinakis, and Will Ferrel.  One could even argue that his other recent film, "Due Date", is a remake of Hughe's classic "Trains, Planes, and Automobiles".  Unfortunately, all of this tenure and praise doesn't amount to much in this sequel (if you can call it a "sequel").

The story is structurally identical to the first Hangover.  Beat for beat, plot point for plot point, these two scripts are entirely interchangeable.  Each filmic device is the same: one could swap Vegas for Bangkok, the monkey for Chow, Chow for Heather Graham and even the "Mcguffin"(code for the "thing" everyone wants in the movie) , missing brother, Teddy for lost best friend, Doug .  The movie doesn't feel like a sequel, but more like a reboot.  Part 2 doesn't expand on the story, the characters, or the world we established with the original.  Perhaps someone like Adam McKay would have been able to bring some new comedic elements to this journey, or even David Schwimmer (yes from "Friends", he's a director now).

The performances are nothing new here as well.  Bradley Cooper does a decent job as the cool, calm, collected one of the bunch.  Galifinakis is typical, playing himself yet again.  I would like to see him branch out from these types of comedies, and do more work in tune with "It's Kind of a Funny Story", because honestly, he's great in that movie, and I think I speak for a lot of people when I say, "we are getting a little tired of this Zack".  Ed helms is probably the shining star of our triumvirate, he seems to be the only voice of reason ever in these movies, and actual brings something more to his character, "change".  Even if his character only changes slightly, he still grows from his previous experience and still maintains a fresh perspective in this new adventure.  The final performance is Ken Jeong, who is just awful.  I didn't like his character in the first outing, and with added screen time and a pivotal role in the plot of this sinking ship, I despised it even more here.  His character is annoying, uninteresting, and feels like he is reading the cue cards from a PA just off of camera.  I wish I had better things to say about this one, but I can't help but feel disappointed.  

My advice: save 14 bucks and buy some scratch-off tickets.  You'll have more fun and excitement scratching to see if got three lemons on one of those than sitting through the Hangover 2.  I'm giving it 2 out of 5 aspirins, but really you're going to need the rest of the bottle for this one.

Priest Review

Let me set this up for you.   In a post-apocoliptic wasteland controlled by the remnants of the Catholic Church, Paul Bettany, plays "Priest", a superhuman "man of God" bent on hunting down the vampires responsible for kidnapping his Niece.  Are you still with me?  Good.

The world that Priest inhabits is a familiar landscape.  There's a lot of sand and barren landscape.  There's nothing really new in these parts of the film.  However, one area that I was impressed with was the overall design of the last remaining human cities.  The cityscape is littered with monitors, speakers, and the Church motto: unity through faith or something like that.  On another positive note the costumes are somewhat interesting as well as the final set piece that takes place on a moving train.  All these things help "Priest", but there are just too many "wrongs" to overcome the few "rights".

The story is predictable and lack luster.  This is a classic tale we have seen many times before.  A man with no name goes out against the wishes of some sort of authority, whether it be police, society, or the Catholic church, determined to find his relative's captors and return the captive to her loved ones, even if that means sacrificing his morals and possibly his beliefs in the process.  I feel like this story was created from a blank "Mad Libs" page, where the writer just filled in his ideal fantasy of everything he wanted in a movie; insert vampires, the old west, religious overtones, and kung fu.

Priest's character is a man of little dialogue, but so is this script.  The story is entirely plot driven and uninspired.  Bettany's character has a few dry "one liners" that are good for a few laughs here and there, but ultimately fail to live up to classic action stars such as Governator and Sly.  Bettany does a decent job of portraying the nameless antagonist, but doesn't really have to flex his acting muscles to get the job done.  Maggie Q also makes an appearance in the film as a fellow priest, ordered by the church to pursue Bettany and bring him in dead or alive.  Hints of her love and a possible relationship are thrown into the film to spice up the secondary plots, but not a lot of screen time is given to develop this story line and give it some real weight.  The most forgettable character in the film is Hicks, played by Cam Gigandet.  Hick's character is about as useless as the barren wasteland he travels through with Priest on their journey to obtain the kidnapped, Lucy Pace.  I think most of the problem with Cam's character is not his acting, but due to a poorly written script.  The only character that I feel shines in this vampire romp is Karl Urban.  Urban plays the first and only "human vampire" in the film and was trained to be superhuman priest like Bettany.  Urban is hellbent on revenge against the church that left him to die so many years ago.  Urban has some great psychotic scenes including: one where he conducts a symphony while destroying another human outpost with his new vampire comrads.  He's creepy, cold, and perhaps the only redeemable aspect of this film.

In the end a predictable story, uninteresting characters, and poorly written script couldn't save this one from ending up in the 5$ bin at Walmart a year from now.  I left the theatre pretty disappointed, and found myself laughing when I should have been moved emotionally.  Granted "Priest" is supposed to be a silly summer action flick, but it can't even deliver on that promise.  My advice, catch this one on netflix instant watch.  I'm giving it 2 wooden stakes out of 5