Matando Cabos ****

(Killing Cabos)
Director: Alejandro Lozano

Year: 2004

Writers: Alejandro Lozano, Tony Dalton, Kristoff

Cinematographer: Juan Jose Saravia

Hilarious. See it!

Fun filmmaking, great characters, funny dialogue without resorting to stupid jokes, a great comedy of errors by way of Raising Arizona and Snatch.

Some fun visual effects, the director uses the visual form well, and even integrates some fun references to Taxi Driver and Down By Law.

3rd time I've seen it and never get tired of it, laugh harder each time because I'm understanding more and more spanish.

Plastic Bag ****

Short Film

Writer/Director: Ramin Bahrani

Year: 2009

Cinematographer: Michael Simmonds

Werner Herzog is the voice of a plastic bag on the search for its humanity.

The White Stripes: Under Great White Northern Lights ****

Director: Emmett Malloy

Year: 2009

Cinematographer: Giles Dunning

The 2007 tour of Canada that opened up their 6th full-length release, Icky Thump. Its a more comprehensive look into Jack's philosophy, although does a good job by not letting him talk too much during the documentary, because, although full of music history and theory, lets face it, we'd rather here him make music with Meg than pontificate about himself.

The concerts are an extremely interesting subject for a concert film, as some of the venues are so small and unconventional that you really get an enormously genuine and personal performance every time, not to mention being more visual interesting.

Feel like Jack should get a co-direction credit here for choosing the locations and times and circumstances of the shows. He helps the filmmaker by giving him a great subject, and Malloy covers a lot of the main bases, but ultimately I wanted more. I wanted not just a glossy praising of Jack White, but a gritty look into whatever conflicts surround him, I wanted to see him planning, wrestling with himself, fighting others for his creative freedom... its fun to just see them be cool, but not as interesting... on the other hand, I LOVE the choice to shoot actual film, looks like 16mm in many places, it suits the band and their music. The music is great, my personal favorite if you are talking concert films, beat out only by Jimi Hendrix maybe. I was especially moved by their cover of Dolly Parton's "Jolene".

The Cove *****

Director: Louie Psihoyos

Year: 2009

Writer: Mark Monroe

If I were teaching a class on documentary production, I would use this as an example of how to construct a documentary feature. It keeps the audience well informed of the problem in society, clearly explaining why it should be changed, returning regularly to reaffirm the audiences belief in the cause, and also developing a riveting civil-disobedience crime thriller.

I believe in the cause, the film makes a very good case for itself, but still, every time I see such great effort spent to save animals, I wonder who's making the oscar-award winning documentary about human rights in some part of the world where humans are being massacred, sold into sexual slavery or sent to fight and die for the financial benefit of some rich fat-cat.

This quality of filmmaking, this care in constructing convincing argument and exciting and passionate law-breaking for the sake of justice could have been used to make a better version of all the recent political documentaries I've seen...

Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire ***

Director: Lee Daniels

Year: 2009

Book by: Sapphire

Adapted by: Geoffrey Fletcher

Cinematographer: Andrew Dunn

Great acting by Mo'Nique, and surprisingly good acting from Mariah Carey... some good moments from first time actor Gabourey Sidibe, but still not strong enough an actor to pull off all of her heavy-hitting emotional moments.

The inspirational teacher thing is worn out for me, I know they exist, but I'm tired of the fact that they are always the saviors for the kids of the ghetto in American urban-set films.

Also, I don't think the director gives us a tight and coherent style, tonally moves around and the camera draws too much attention to itself at times, zooming in and out during interview scenes, and the camera move that goes up and over Mo'Nique's head is not only distracting, but doesn't seem to have a purpose.

The story is powerful, and seems fair. Some critics have said it portrays black women of harlem as lazy welfare hogs, and I say its all fair game in cinema, I believe this character exists, and if there is only one of them in real life, that's okay, I don't walk out of the theater thinking all people on welfare are just lazy and crazy, not wanting to work. I think it is believable that a character has lost hope, justifiably or not, we can not judge from outside, and that reality for those who have lost hope is not only miserable, but because hurt people hurt people, they go on to make life miserable for even their own daughters.

Hope and change was the message of the Oprah backed Obama campaign, and this seems to come in on the same tone... to all the precious girls out there, you can take heart, there is hope, take control of your life and change it for the better.

It is exactly the film Oprah would love, out of dark reality, there is hope to change.

I would personally prefer to see this kind of American family portrayed with the strict realism of Mike Leigh or the Dardenne Brothers.

Paria ***

Short Documentary

Director: Jona Elfdahl

Year: 2008

Interesting bits of personal philosophy spewed by an embittered but very intelligent swedish 27-year-old handicapped person. Interesting, thought provoking, and moving, especially when we see the reaction to the news about genetic engineering rendering down-syndrome a possible thing of the past. Adryan calls it a massacre, a type of genocide perpetuated against those born with any kind of "disability".

Adryan argues that the only real human beings are those that suffer from disease and weakness, that it is such an essential part of the human experience that when God came to earth in the form of Jesus, Jesus allowed himself to suffer because God knew he had to suffer if he was ever really going to relate to the human experience.

Production wise, little more than hand-held home video of Adryan's interesting monologues.

Bernadette ***

Short Documentary

Director: Duncan Campbell

Year: 2008

First half is a look at Bernadette Devlin the north Irish activist who fought for independence from england and peace between the catholics and protestants. She was elected to parliament, but the Prime Minister and parliament refused to recognize her representative voice.

The dated news footage of her is edited in such a way to keep the audience a little confused, and to convey the chaos of the challenge she faced, organizing a revolution.

Then the film turns to a dramatic reading of a poetic monologue, supposedly the inner dialogue of Bernadette thinking about her own egoism and the hypocrisy of writing her autobiography.

The short doesn't teach us much in depth about her, and although it first sets up a basic understanding of who she was and what she was doing, doesn't want to give us a full character arc, but instead gets sucked up into a mediocre poetry reading that doesn't help shed any light on who she was.

The Shock Doctrine ****

Director: Michael Winterbottom, Mat Whitecross

Year: 2009

Book by: Naomi Klein

A well directed, clearly argued visual summary of Naomi Klein's book which surmises that Milton Friedman's economic solution of unrestricted capitalism not only doesn't work, but seems to be inherently evil, resulting in "disaster capitalism" and "the shock doctrine". It makes good examples of the past, showing how capitalist leaders sneakily passed laws for deregulation of markets, suppression of unions, and privatization of important national industries while people aren't looking, because we are too focused on tragedies, wars or other shocking occurances at the time.

I think her premise is right, and although the film is well done, it falls just short of making a totally convincing argument. I think a Chicago School economist and conservative republican could still make strong arguments against some of the statements in this film. For example, I don't believe that evil men planned these things out, I think its just the nature of the capitalistic system, but that the well-intentioned men only get feedback from the rich, that all their buddies tell them that these changes are good, that they help business, and they assume it's good for everyone, but they don't care to look at the statistics about middle-class wages holding flat for 30 years, while since Reagan, CEO's went from making 40% more than the workers to 700% more. If the dollars go up for the CEO, they ought to go up for everybody in relative percentage... that's the strongest argument against the policies since Reagan, but I don't think this film focused enough on that to drive it home.

The stuff about Chile and Argentina is indeed important history, but I think the film actually spent too much time on those subjects, since military dictatorships that strike down all dissenting voices are more to blame for disappearances than capitalistic economics.

In the US what is relevant is that we do have a voice to dissent, but we aren't dissenting. We aren't speaking up enough for the workers, and what we need in this nation is a worker's revolution of government and the governments economic policies. We need to regulate the big companies and put the strength back in local business.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button *

Director: David Fincher

Year: 2008

Short story by: F. Scott Fitzgerald

Adapted by: Eric Roth, Robin Swicord

Cinematographer: Claudio Miranda

The script is aweful. The effects are creepy, as an old man, Pitt simply uses his voice like a simple script reading in an imitation of innocent youth. Pitt's acting is not very good here, but its not helped by the script, which is redundant enough to show exactly what Benjamin is writing in his diary. The frame of the story with the hurricane in New Orleans is forced and useless, the acting is very poor in certain parts, and I'm inclined to give fault to Fincher for bad directing. For example, in the scene where his father robs him from the cradle, his arm flails while running as if to push people away, the physical acting is too big, also when Blanchett's daughter says something like "boy it sure is getting bad out there" its kind of a duh moment, a giant hurricane is coming, and the story all of a sudden pulls out of the diary reading in order to show a lightning strike and this forced moment, and on top of that, her arms are stretched out and down in shock at the lightning, and it just annoys me because its so over acted, but then again, the script is dumbed down.

Don't ever explain things so plainly, like when the doctor at the beginning lists off Benjamin's symptoms, and if that wasn't clear enough, says "more like an old man than a new born child"... well duh! We knew that from the trailer and plot synopsis, we don't need it spelled out for us. oh, and just because a character is from the south does not mean that the only punctuation added to a sentence should be "ya here!" People from the south may use this, but its not the only punctuation added, nor do they always add a punctuation to their sentences. This is cheap screenwriting, the dialogue is atrocious, and again, if you are going to have voice over, it must be giving the audience some kind of extra insight that we can't glean from the images themselves.

What's with the 7 lightning strike inserts?

Pitt's accent here is the only thing worse than the script.

Every single time the film returns to present day in the hospital, someone has to make a stupid reminder of "the hurricane's a'commin'!"

Another choice that annoys me, is that the intro has this old film affect added in digital post, its cheap, it looks like a bad effect and you can tell that the film wasn't shot that way, for one thing, old 8mm film wasn't widescreen, and for another, it breaks the effect when you use it on a crane shot. If you want the effect of the old 8mm hand-held cameras, well then why don't you use an old 8mm camera hand-held, and put the footage in the film as the separate format?

Bad effects choices here, oh, and Benjamin looks creepy, you are always aware that its a CGI character.

Do not waste your time on this film, I can't believe it was nominated for oscars for directing and screenplay, this has got to be one of the worst screenplays to ever be nominated, and this is 2008's most overrated film.

Forrest Gump is a much better choice if you want to see american pop culture history told through the lense of one outstanding character.

No Country for Old Men *****

Directors: Joel and Ethan Coen

Year: 2007

Book by: Cormac McCarthy

Adapted by: Joel and Ethan Coen

Cinematographer: Roger Deakins

I never get tired of this film, ever since the first time I saw it in the theater, I've been blown away by the conciseness of the filmmaking by the Coen Brothers, and especially considering that the film doesn't tie up all the loose ends. It ends on this philosophical dialogue, like Fargo, the only one of their films that impresses me more than this, and their most recent release, A Serious Man.

I don't know how much to credit to McCarthy's original material, but the characters and dialogue here are spectacularly fleshed out, and the rhythm of the story, the shots, the editing is masterful. The Coens keep you guessing, and always allow for the mysteriousness and unpredictability of real life.

I really enjoy the meditation on death here, and the confusion of the good sheriff trying to make sense of the mad, violent world around him.

There's a lot of depth to this film, without having a message, and I love that.

The acting here is top notch by all involved, and Deakins' photography is perfect.

This is a classic film, one of the best in American cinema history, one that I feel I ought to continue to study.

Absolutely MUST SEE.

Capitalism: A Love Story ***

Writer/Director: Michael Moore

Year: 2009

I appreciate the ideas presented by Moore, and I'm in agreement with the message that unchecked capitalism is bad for 99% of the population because it is used to make the rich richer and poor poorer... I myself always complain about how socialism is treated like a bad word in the US. My personal political beliefs tend to line up with Democratic Socialists because I think we actually suffer from a lack of democracy, the masses don't have ENOUGH say, so I want more accurate democratic representation of individuals and less representation of the interests of corporations in government. I would like to see more regulation of large companies, and I would like for the US to add another set of "self-evident human rights" added to the constitution, very similar to that proposed by FDR.

My problem with Michael Moore is his narcissistic personality that comes through in his films, and I grit my teeth every time he presents himself as this innocent little boy who doesn't understand why big banks won't put their money in his truck and let him drive it to the Federal Reserve, or why they won't let him march into GM headquarters to interrogate the president of GM, or perform a citizen's arrest on the CEO's of the big banks. The showmanship is what I loath about Moore's style of filmmaking, it's annoying, childish and distracting from an otherwise good film.

A documentary filmmaker should not use his own personality enter into the film, and should avoid narrating, and certainly should not voice his own opinions or get up in front of the camera as a gimmick.

He had some good examples of the ways that corporations (organizations motivated to return profit to shareholders without regard for human factors) destroy the lives of people in the working class, and even set up some good examples of what the working class can do to change things, but instead of trusting his interviewees to explain the story, or lead his desired revolution, Moore sticks in his highly polarizing personality to annoy and maybe even offend the viewers. I can agree with his point and enjoy the good points that are made and still disregard his intrusive persona in the film as a bad cinematic choice... however, many people are so turned off by his silly antics that they can't listen to him, even if he is making a good point.

I wish Moore would shut up, stay behind the camera, cut out the antics, and focus on the real people, and present to us a more sincere and thorough investigation into his subject. Facts are more convincing than talking head personalities. No one changes their mind when the person they argue with presents tangental points, personal or petty verbal attacks, or irrelevant antics.

People will be convinced to join a revolution when you give them the straight facts presented in a clear and understandable, no-nonsense form.

The Thin Red Line *****

Director: Terrence Malick

Year: 1998

Book by: James Jones

Adapted by: Terrence Malick

Cinematographer: John Toll

A meditation on life, love and war, set in WWII during the Pacific battle for Guadalcanal.

Tremendously beautiful, masterfully directed, great cast. I love the way his camera isn't so focused on telling a narrative plot line, but more on letting the camera meditate on the idea of "something has gone wrong in paradise". The contrast between the paradise of the island and the hell of war is the central meditation here, and the ruminations of the soldier's inner dialogues is haunting.

Another masterpiece for Malick.

Bronson ****

Director: Nicolas Winding Refn

Year: 2009

Writers: Nicolas Winding Refn, Brock Norman Brock

Cinematographer: Larry Smith

Tom Hardy gives one of my top 10 performances of all time. After this performance he's up there with Daniel Day-Lewis as far as I'm concerned.

Great style, but lacks something in the story arc to make it a great film.

Still, very good film, very original, see it!

All or Nothing ***

Writer/Director: Mike Leigh
Year: 2002

Cinematographer: Dick Pope

Again Mike Leigh brings us reality. Real people, perfectly acted by a great cast, capable of hitting each note with total realism. The conflicts and arguments in Leigh's films always seem to build to that point to which if you yourself have ever experienced that bit of real life it would move you to tears I'm sure. He never goes too big, nothing is ever unbelievable, there is no suspension of disbelief with Mike Leigh's cinema, you can't help but be drawn in by the characters and their conflicts, but at the same time, these films are so hard to watch because it is like watching reality.

Mike Leigh never offers entertainment, but he does seem to always offer some hope.

If you want to see great acting, or if you are tired of Hollywood cinema and you want to see a film about REAL people and the kinds of conflicts normal people have, watch a Mike Leigh film, and All or Nothing is an especially good example.

However, after now seeing 4 of his films: All or Nothing, Secrets and Lies, Vera Drake, and Happy-Go-Lucky... I am certainly most likely to revisit Happy-Go-Lucky... because all the others are the sad reality, and in Happy-Go-Lucky you get the relief of following a character who is happy in her reality.

He's a great filmmaker, extremely consistent, but his films are hard to watch.

Shakespeare In Love ****

Director: John Madden

Year: 1998

Writers: Tom Stoppard, Marc Norman

Cinematographer: Richard Greatrex

A very good adaptation of Shakespeare's work, especially as a piece of fiction supposedly explaining the romantic inspiration for Shakespeare's most famous work. The script is very good, the acting very good, I especially enjoyed Tom Wilkinson here. A very good movie, but misses being great for me.

See it!

L'avventura ****

(The Adventure)

Director: Michelangelo Antonioni
Year: 1960
Writers: Michelangelo Antonioni, Elio Bartolini, Tonino Guerra
Cinematographer: Aldo Scavarda

I love the space in this picture, the slow, meditative photography, the open spaces... really the photography here is outstanding.

The story is haunting and mysterious, although the behavior of the man is not. A womanizer's adventure should really be the title, yet we follow the story through the eyes of a woman who becomes one of his victims.

Beautiful film, so very Italian. Young, fashionable rich Italians go on vacation. The women are magnificent, and the men consume and discard them like objects. Yachts, classic convertibles, the best fashion in history, and beautiful Italian locations make this film so seductive to look at.

Definitely see it.

Three Kings *****

Writer/Director: David O Russell

Year: 1999

Story by: John Ridley

Cinematographer: Newton Thomas Sigel

A great satirical/action flick. Like Billy Wilder, understands how to blend comedy and serious drama, how to keep high stakes and move the story forward in unexpected ways, and provides comedy in a way that lends realism. I think this might be one of the best war films ever made just because it captures the chaos of war, the misunderstandings that turn even light moments into deadly moments. He also includes something thematically that is not only true to war, I'm sure, but something that is true to life; the turn from comedy to tragedy, in fact, the endless blend of dark comedy that is life.

This is my first David O. Russell film I believe, but I am going to start searching out more of his films. This is very smart and fun cinema.

He is creative in his camera work and photography, the way he uses visual flourishes to add to the depth of the story.

Loved this film. See it!

Easy Virtue *

Director: Stephan Elliott
Year: 2008
Play by: Noel Coward
Adapted by: Stephan Elliott, Sheridan Jobbins

Cinematographer: Martin Kenzie

I don't know what makes a director think that casting solid actors like Katherine Parkinson, Colin Firth and Kristin Scott Thomas into his film will redeem it, or guarantee good acting.

This director makes horrible choices, from casting Jessica Biel and Ben Barnes as love interests, (neither is fit to carry a film, despite their pretty faces) and I just can't believe that that kind of voluptuous woman, a character made out to be a rebellious woman could actually fall in love with a skinny little Ben Barnes. I just don't buy it. Sure, in real life it could happen, but this film does nothing to explain their immediately assumed love.

Furthermore, the script is clunky and forces itself forward without any chance for us to actually connect with the characters. And I don't know if even the normally solid actors were just feeling lazy or if the editor chose poor takes or if the director just failed to inspire them to strong acting, but either way, the responsibility falls to Elliott to make good choices, and he doesn't.

I couldn't even get interested in the first 10 minutes of this film, so I did not watch any further. If you can't grab me, if you can't make me care about your story or your characters... I couldn't even tell what the conflict or direction of this film was going to take in the first 10 minutes... if you can't hold my interest, then you don't deserve to ever direct again.

I was actually angry last night that this director robbed me of 10 minutes of my life, when those who have the money and resources could give them over to good directors to make more films like "The Apartment". If you are going to spend all that money and effort to make a big film, using locations like mansions and castles and cool antique cars and elaborate costumes... please make good use of those things to tell a great story. Props do not make a movie, they don't make a play either. And I hate most when a film is cast treating the actors like props themselves, and here, that's exactly what Jessica Biel is. She has that kind of knock-out beauty that might fit this period, but that doesn't mean she automatically should be cast in a role she can't handle. If her beauty is to be used as a prop, then put her in a minor role that calls for a bomb-shell, but don't ask her to play lead. You not only waste the role, but you denigrate it, you make the character less important when you don't allow the character to come alive through the performance of a good actor, when you make the character just as shallow as Jessica Biel's beauty.

Please, do not watch this movie, do not waste your time nor money.

If you want to see a good musical, see 1972's "Cabaret" starring Liza Minnelli and directed by Bob Fosse.

The Fog of War ***

11 Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara

Director: Errol Morris
Year: 2003

A very interesting interview with Bob McNamara is the centerpiece for this documentary. The lessons learned are indeed insightful, and one only wishes that in 2003 President Bush had watched this film and applied the lessons learned by McNamara.

The lessons are:
1. Empathize with your enemy
2. Rationality will not save us
3. There's something beyond one's self
4. Maximize efficiency
5. Proportionality should be a guideline in war
6. Get the data
7. Belief and seeing are both often wrong
8. Be prepared to re-examine your reasoning
9. In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil
10. Never say never
11. You can't change human nature

The film spends its time filling in bits and pieces of the life of McNamara and showing us just how influential he has been on American life, from being one of the first advocates for seatbelts in cars, to guiding Kennedy through the Cuban Missile Crisis, and even hand-picking Kennedy's final resting place.

The interview is most intriguing when McNamara unveils his mistakes and especially when he unveils his greatest, and America's most poignant mistake, the Vietnam War. He tells of his revelation that it was an enormous misunderstanding... that had we understood the Vietnamese civil war as just that, rather than interpreting as a front in the feared war between communism and democracy, we could have kept our noses out of their business and saved a whole lot of lives and resources.

The film is least interesting when delving into his personal life, I understand that he's a human and must have a family and must have come from somewhere, but I am so much more intrigued by what he says about American activities and decision making during wartime, and especially General Curtis LeMay, as an example of the brutal "warmonger" stereotype, painting him much more complicatedly, part reasonable, and part truly brutal, possibly war-criminal. In fact, the film should be most shocking when McNamara admits that had we lost WWII he himself should have been tried as a war-criminal.

A must see for any person of power, I wish every military person would see and understand these lessons before learning the lessons of Tsun Tsu's "The Art of War".

Oh, and one last note, Errol Morris really exceeds in this film with his selection of and editing of archive footage.

The Apartment *****

Director: Billy Wilder

Year: 1960

Writers: Billy Wilder, I.A.L. Diamond

Cinematographer: Joseph LaShelle

Excellent, excellent, excellent! An absolute joy to watch! This film just shot up to my top 20 films of all-time, maybe even my top-5.

Billy Wilder blends serious drama with perfectly handled comedy, glorious black and white photography by Joseph LaShelle, and superb acting by Jack Lemmon and Shirley McLaine.

What a pleasure to find a film that takes unexpected turns, develops characters a bit unexpectedly. I didn't want this movie to end, I could stay with these characters another hour. I can't wait to see it again, it has now moved to the number 1 spot on my list of must purchase DVDs.

Wilder weaves characters, plot lines, and even dialogue and incidental details all so intricately, tightly, neatly that every second of this film is actually significant to the story. That kind of tight story-telling is something that you lack in much of current cinema, maybe only the Coen Brothers are close to this kind of perfect filmmaking.

I love the moment when Lemmon's character hides the razors in his bathroom from McClaine's suicidal character, and then later lathers up for a shave, enters into an important dramatic scene with his face still covered in shaving cream, and the denouement of the scene comes when he re-enters the bathroom to shave and realizes the razors are still in his pocket.

Little things like that, and when Lemmon and later McClaine as well say "three" but hold up 4 fingers, make this film extra-enjoyable. I love the subtler kinds of comedy here, and just the natural comedy that arises from the situations, though not laugh-out-loud moments, you enjoy the complication of life experienced by Lemmon because it is realistic not in a literal way, like Mike Leigh's "Vera Drake", but realistic emotionally. It feels right, like it could happen, and that's what matters.

I love realism, but when you give me this kind of emotional realism while giving me comedy and a well-organized story all at the same time, you're really giving me a movie that I'll want to revisit over and over again.

This is why I love movies.

Vera Drake ****

Writer/Director: Mike Leigh

Year: 2004

Cinematographer: Dick Pope

Again, Mike Leigh slowly builds a character study, filling out surrounding characters, although giving a confusing and disconnected weight to story lines of a girl who is raped, and to Vera's own son... He is certainly a master of realism, and giving his actors space to fill out characters fully and honestly. And the drama of the story here builds greatly, as we see no one is intentionally doing evil, but the legal system isn't designed to be graceful or understanding, it doles out its black and white judgments even more harshly than Mrs. Drake's own son. Like her husband suggests, the world isn't so black and white as we like to think.

A tragedy of misunderstanding and accidents. I think I'm beginning to see the pattern for Mike Leigh's stories and his ideas about life. He's extremely honest, and his characters are totally human, never intended for entertainment, but for reflection on what our human experience is really like. As individuals, we are well intentioned for the most part, although we make mistakes and have misunderstandings which can result in great, damaging consequences. Maybe the greatest evils we suffer from are those actions doled out by human organizations which make set rules and fail to take into account the individuality of each specific person and situation.

A great realist filmmaker, and I greatly admire his work here... but this kind of stark human realism is hard to feel affection for, and I don't believe I'll go out of my way to see this film again unless I am studying cues for directing realism.

The next movie I saw was Billy Wilder's "The Apartment", and I must confess, I finally understand why an elevated sense of reality is more conducive to the cinematic form, offering the ability to open and close a story more cleanly, and that this form of story telling is more approachable for the audience, especially when you take the comedy and drama of life equally seriously. I'll save the praise for The Apartment for that review, but it is important to understand why I give Vera Drake 4 and not 5 stars. I'm not likely to revisit Vera Drake, although its an example of great filmmaking, although The Apartment will draw me back many times, it has moved to the number one slot on my "Must buy DVDs" list.

First Wives Club ***

Director: Hugh Wilson
Year: 1996
Book by: Olivia Goldsmith
Adapted by: Robert Harling

Cinematographer: Donald E. Thorin

Despite some average and at times bad directing (music choices, especially the montage sequence and final dance sequence are not only too 90's, they are flat out annoying) the actresses here are great and the dialogue is really fun.

Good movie, but fails to rise above being a formulaic Hollywood picture.

The actresses do have a great chemistry and are fun to watch on screen together, but the story and directing fail to take this film to a truly special level.

Secrets & Lies ****

Writer/Director: Mike Leigh
Year: 1996

Cinematographer: Dick Pope

Mike Leigh knows how to write a screenplay that gives a full emotional development for all characters and he knows how to direct his camera subtly, giving his actors space to fill out those characters honestly.

I like the way he sets up the characters individually, and then slowly weaves them all together, which climaxes in an explosive family gathering.

I also liked Timothy Spall as the Maurice character, and Leigh gives a really nice segment in which we see Maurice, a professional photographer, working with a series of customers.

My critique is that he could have edited this a little shorter, for example: the opening funeral sequence and the sequence when Maurice is visited by the previous owner of his shop has little to no consequence for the main plot.

Bella **

Director: Alejandro Gomez Monteverde

Year: 2006

Writers: Alejandro Gomez Monteverde, Patrick Million, Leo Severino

Cinematographer: Andrew Cadelago

A nice little film, but the actors are too sexy to believe, and impossible to believe that the girl isn't madly in love with the guy at the end of the day, he's the perfect man, and yet the film wants to attempt this idea in which the girl just treats him like a nice guy.

The acting is lacking as well.

Also, it's hard to feel genuine interest in a character who is so handsome, talented, blessed, and overly puppy-dog-eyed. He has no faults, just had an unlucky tragedy. That's not a character. Characters have faults, not just accidents.

It doesn't earn the last scene, and Tammy Blanchard as Nina gets on my nerves with too much open mouthed crying. It might be okay if she got to that point just for one moment, at the climax of her emotion, but she goes there almost 3 times, and lingers with this sobbing, open-mouthed crying, and all in close-ups. It doesn't work.

You either have to use more subtle facial gestures in close-up or you have to pull back to wider angles, and you really shouldn't have a character weep more than once in a film. Build the emotion, explore the ranges of emotion before weeping.

Unfortunately not really worth the time.

Blue Velvet ****

Writer/Director: David Lynch

Year: 1986

Cinematographer: Frederick Elmes

A perverse underworld exists in a quiet, innocent little town, and Jeffrey stumbles upon it, and in his curious investigation into it, gets sucked in as the horror and strangeness steadily build to a climax.

Lynch shows us the dark underside that exists just below the surface of the perfect, quiet little American towns. Just as in the opening sequence, when we go from the prettiness of the homes and lawns, to the bugs and beetles crawling in the mud just below the grass.

Be prepared for a weird mystery, full of memorable moments, lines of dialogue, and images.

It is hard to get attached to this film, I think because we have a natural aversion to perverse crime, and it naturally offends the viewer and puts you at a distance, but I think that this is exactly what Lynch is trying to show us... that none of our perfect little innocent towns are actually untouched by evil, that it lurks and haunts at least a few in every town, no matter how perfect it looks on the surface.

Corazón del Tiempo ****

(Heart of Time)

Director: Alberto Cortés

Year: 2009

Writers: Hernann Bellinghaussen, Alberto Cortés

Cinematographer: Marc Bellver

A really nice little film set in the region of southern mexico where the Zapatistas are fighting for their right to live off-the-grid. They don't want to either use the resources of Mexico nor pay taxes for them. They want to live life separate from what they see as a corrupt system, and they have a kind of socialist paradise though they don't necessarily want to live like Amish. They don't reject technology, they reject the government of Mexico.

Therefore they are constantly pressured by the mexican military and treated as a terrorist group although they avoid violent tactics, preferring peaceful means to maintain a separate existence.

Therefore it is highly interesting to see if this kind of socialist village can actually function, and the drama of this story is focused on just that, how the village struggles to maintain its freedom from external threats, and also how it deals with internal cultural conflicts.

The internal cultural conflict here is a young girl who decides she doesn't want to marry the boy who has paid a cow in order to be engaged to her. Instead she falls in love with one of the group's soldiers who patrol the jungle, keeping an eye out for potential attacks coming from Mexican Police/Military and other political groups.

The conflict never rises very high, because this group of traditional farmers is quite liberal and open minded, eventually allowing the girl to make her own decision, and resolving their internal cultural conflict with level heads.

Its a beautiful film because we see something incredible, a human organization that operates as we all dream and aspire towards. Its shocking just to see a society actually work.

The directing here is subtle but actually very good, working with the native people as actors requires a very sensitive touch, and though the acting isn't stellar, they really do portray themselves in an extremely honest and real way.

See it!

Shine A Light **

Director: Martin Scorsese

Year: 2008

This Rolling Stones concert film succeeds only in the very brief intervals in which we see archived footage and bits of interviews with the band when they were younger, more exciting performers.

I suppose the concert itself is interesting as a documentation of geriatric rockers, but the Stones just aren't as radical sounding anymore, not helped by a sound mix that leaves each sound so isolated and clean that the heart or stomach or balls which ought to give rock its swagger is totally lost here. Mick Jagger still has lots of energy, but he looks like he's performing a routine that he's been up to since the 60's, and the whole thing lacks edge. Not to mention the concert's introduction by Bill Clinton, which leaves you shaking your head, "This isn't rock and roll." It's a buzz-kill when an ex-President endorses rock and roll, it makes it tame, clean and okay, and that's not what rock should be.

Jack White understandable seems like a giddy kid playing onstage with childhood heroes, but he of all people should see through the bullshit in this performance. The band of 4 geriatrics is supplemented by 3 back up singers, a bassist, keyboard, and full brass section. There are more accents to the music than music itself, therefore any semblance of rock's simplicity is drowned out.

And Scorsese doesn't bring the goods cinematically, there are a few interesting angles, but with such over-shooting, I actually felt there were too many angles, too much editing, and too many close ups of Mick Jaggers mouth even when the guitars are the focus of the music at a given point.

Maybe Scorsese himself is aware that this film didn't work, because he offers up this weak build-up to the concert in which it is overly explained that he wasn't able to prepare as he liked because he didn't have a setlist. Well I'm sorry, but if your production is so complicated that you can't deal with the improvisation that should come along with rock, then you should just simplify your shooting plan.

I couldn't even finish this film because it was the worst thing a film or rock and roll concert could be, BORING.

Can't wait to see "The White Stripes: Under Great White Northern Lights"

For a great concert film/music documentary, see Woodstock, or the 1973 film Jimi Hendrix. Gimme Shelter is also more interesting than this new release.

Gangs of New York ***

Director: Martin Scorsese

Year: 2002

Writers: Jay Cocks, Steven Zaillian, Kenneth Lonergan

Cinematographer: Michael Ballhaus

Daniel Day-Lewis as "Bill 'the butcher' Cutting" is worth seeing the movie for, though I'm not keen on the casting of DiCaprio nor Cameron Diaz. At times the camera seems to move just to move, but without purpose. I get that you are trying to convey the energy of the times, but the camera movements get annoying at times because they aren't significant to the story and the feeling of the film borders on musical, here a bad thing.

I don't want to see these times gussied up and so over-exaggeratedly cinematic that it feels like a broadway show rather than reality.

I think Scorsese should have brought the mood, the darkness and vastness of new york that he brought to us in Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Mean Streets.

Good movie, just not how I wanted to see it directed. Doesn't help that I never get emotionally attached to Leo DiCaprio when he's the lead character.

Daniel Day-Lewis here and in "There Will Be Blood" is so powerful in his performance that it defies superlatives. He has earned recognition in my eyes as the greatest actor currently working just for those two roles. He was born to play big, powerhouse villains.

Fantastic Mr. Fox ****

Director: Wes ANDERSON

Year: 2009

Book by: Roald DAHL

Adapted by: Wes ANDERSON, Noah BAUMBACH

Cinematographer: Tristan OLIVER

Great fun, incredible stop-motion puppet animation, all the usual stylistic flourishes of Wes Anderson, along with the usual casting choices (Owen Wilson, Jason Schwarzman, Bill Murray, Wally Wolodarsky, Willem Dafoe, etc...), plus Clooney and Streep in the lead voice roles giving all the voices great color and character.

Fun and energetic like all of Anderson's work, plus the natural fun and energy that comes from Dahl's book. The two artists really make a great pairing, and I think Anderson is a natural choice for adaptations of Dahl's works.

One of the best animated features for kids ever, lots of depth and quality to the sound design which is really what makes this film work. oh, and the usual excellent soundtrack featuring rock from the 60's, and in this film replacing the usual Kinks tracks with Beach Boys stuff.

A great fun little film, still lacking something in the stakes, and emotional reality. Anderson continues to make the best quirky films with dead-pan humor and problematic families filled with insecure boy/men. But the characters remain something that stays on screen for us to watch and laugh at, Anderson still hasn't reached through that screen to touch me emotionally.

Probably gonna want to have this on DVD.

Year One **

Director: Harold Ramis

Year: 2009

Writers: Harold Ramis, Gene Stupnitsky, Lee Eisenberg

Cinematographer: Alar Kivilo

Not all that funny. Not unwatchable, but falls way short of being great comedy.

They have a good premise here, and I like Jack Black and Michael Cera, but unfortunately neither seem to be reigned in here by the director. I don't know how much to blame the script for, but I do feel pretty secure in criticizing Ramis' directing since he was one of the screenwriters as well, he especially had the responsibility to use a good premise and make good comedy out of it. Instead, we get a series of potentially funny situations as Black and Cera romp from eating of the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" to meeting Cane just before he kills Abel, then on to being slaves in the desert, captured by Roman Soldiers, and then ending up in Sodom with a lot of repetitive but never funny, sodomy jokes, supposedly just before it gets destroyed by God.

The situations are irreverent both to history and the Judeo-Christian heritage, mixing up their figures and rewriting famous scenes from the bible. I like that idea, it could be spectacularly funny, like in Monty Python's, The Life of Brian, but here the script or the improvisation of the actors never really delivers real jokes. Only the referencing of fairly obvious jokes that come from being in the situation, and dumb and crude superficial humor.

Further cements my theory that the only good comedy is satire. Goofing around and acting stupid, making jokes about sodomy, farts, balls, gays, and laughing at women who suggest God could be a woman does not make comedy.

Infantile, never capitalized on its premise.

Not really worth your time, see "Monty Python's: The Life of Brian".

Smokey and the Bandit ***

Director: Hal Needham

Year: 1977

Writers: James Lee Barrett, Charles Shyer, Alan Mandel

Cinematographer: Bobby Byrne

This movie seems to know its a bad film and never tries to be anything but a B-movie. The dialogue is really corny in parts, but equally fun, especially when Jackie Gleason is creatively spouting profanities.

Sally Fields and Burt Reynolds are just silly here, and when she kisses him romantically (with overbearing music cues in the background) I laughed out loud, thinking "ooh, gross!"

Some fun moments, and a lot of ridiculous cb radio chatter. Worth seeing just for Jackie Gleason as Buford T. Justice, Sheriff of Texarkana.

The premise of the film is very forced and stupid, and the stakes never really get very high, but its fun to see police cars romping around and crashing while trying to catch that infamous black T-top Trans-Am with the golden eagle on the hood.

Goofy little comedy, fun to watch even though its far from being great cinema.

A Serious Man ****

Writers/Directors: Joel & Ethan Coen

Year: 2009

Cinematographer: Roger Deakins

This adaptation of the story of Job, revives that nagging religious question, "why do bad things happen to good people?" Larry Gopnik, as played perfectly by Michael Stuhlbarg, accompanied by a stellar cast filling every role with great performances, searches for meaning in the words of the religious experts, and still comes up empty handed.

Therefore, when he loses his faith in doing the right thing no matter what, takes the opportunity life's randomness offers him, making a decision that is dishonest, but totally understandable, maybe even deserved... we come to the last minute of the film, which does not offer resolution for Larry, but almost a tone of doom. If he felt punished by God before he did something wrong, then how is he going to feel once the impending doom of the final shot hits his family just after actually making an unethical decision?

Seems clear to me that the Coen's opinion on religion is "stop looking for coherent meaning or answers for the mysteries of life, some of it is random, some is the fault of other people choosing to hurt you, and some people have all the bad luck."

But it is interesting when thinking about the intro to the film, a short scene in which a woman, confident in her right action, stabs what she believes to be a ghost with an ice pick. Evil seemingly goes away, conquered by the confidence of a "righteous" or "self-righteous" woman.

We don't know what the consequences are for her, if there are any, as we don't know for certain what the consequences are for Larry when he loses his confidence and falters from the righteous path. Though the sense of impending doom is much greater in Larry's case.

Therefore maybe the Coens are saying "you can't understand it, but its better to think you understand it and to be confident in the way that you live, making decisive choices, than to let life confuse and frustrate and run-over you."

Excellent direction, acting, and script. Great film, can't wait to see it again.

Doubt ****

Writer/Director: John Patrick Shanley

Year: 2008

Cinematographer: Roger Deakins

Radio Bikini ***

Director: Robert Stone

Year: 1988

Documentary on the two H-bomb tests on Bikini Atoll and its horrific affects for the native islanders and sailors present during and immediately after the blast. Bikini Atoll is still uninhabitable do to nuclear radiation fallout.

The Thin Blue Line *****

Director: Errol Morris

Year: 1988

In 1976 a 16 year old kid by the name of David Harris murdered a Dallas police officer. David Harris testified to police that the 28 year old Randall Adams was the murderer.

Randall Adams was convicted of the murder and sentenced to death.

In 1989, a year after this documentary came out, Randall Adams' case was reviewed, and he was released.

If a documentary can do such a fine job in its investigation as to set an innocent man free, then it must be worth watching.

At least that's what I thought when I heard about The Thin Blue Line, a film that many critics hail as one of the greatest documentaries in history. It pioneered crime-scene re-enactments and its straight-forward story telling and investigation into why Randall Adams was wrongly convicted is not only riveting to watch, but a shocking exposé on the ability for corruption to sentence innocent men to death.

David Harris was a lifetime violent criminal while Randall Adams sat on death row.

David Harris was eventually caught for another murder, and convicted on an open and shut case in which he murdered a man in the process of trying to kidnap his girlfriend.

David Harris was excecuted in Huntsville Texas in 2004.

A must see.

Brick Lane ****

Director: Sarah Gavron

Year: 2007

Book by: Monica Ali

Writers: Laura Jones, Abi Morgan

Cinematographer: Robbie Ryan

This is an example of a well-adapted book, it's not rushed in trying to cram the story into 1 hour 40 minutes, although I have not read the book, the film feels tight and stands on its own.

The story of a young girl from Bangladesh who is sold into an arranged marriage to another Bangladeshi man who is well educated and working in London.

The story is very much a woman's story, her struggle in a marriage to a man she did not choose, and an affair she has with a young man she does choose. She is torn between wanting to go "home" to Bangladesh to see her sister, and staying in England for the life that she has grown accustomed to.

She is a woman torn between the old ways and the relatively freer existence offered to women in London.

To add to the complexity of this story, it is set during 2001, around the racial tension in London surrounding 9/11 and the increasing animosity against Muslims and Bangladeshis.

This film works spectacularly because the script gives each character a fully realized and complex personality, no one is clearly good or bad, no one seems consistent or knows who they really are, everyone is constantly evolving throughout the story. This kind of realistic humanity is something rarely seen in cinema, and what sells it are the spectacular performances by each actor, no one seems like they are acting, I was totally immersed in the story and was never aware that I was watching actors. The father figure is especially well realized.

The cinematography is worthy of great credit here. The moods set in the photography are never eye-grabbing, except maybe with the rolling open to closed to open iris technique used at emotionally wrenching moments. The camera never forces itself, but very much participates in the telling of the story, note the love making scene between Nazneen and Karim, the camera without showing actual sex is incredibly sensual, the colors, the movement and placement of edits contributes to a highly erotic scene that captures the amorous mood without being exploitive. What is communicated is the how she is swept away by the affair, and we the audience are just as swept up by the visual story telling here.

Very good film making, complex characters, and a story that defies predictability.

See it!

The English Patient ****

Director: Anthony Minghella

Year: 1996

Book by: Michael Ondaatje

Adapted by: Anthony Minghella

Cinematographer: John Seale

This film is considered a classic, and it is very good. Though it feels very much like an English novel, in that it is long and grandiose, and centers around the tragedy of the English patient's love story.

You have to be in the mood for this kind of long romantic tragedy novel in order to enjoy it, but it is rewarding, great acting and genuinely a good story. About 30 minutes before the end I was doubting why Juliette Binoche had a love interest in this picture, and not until the last 5 minutes does the story come together such that you see the connection.

Ralph Fiennes' character asks to die, part from reaching the end of the telling of his story and the sorrow it brings him to think of it, but more because he knows first hand the tragedies that can occur when two are in love and one must stay behind. Therefore, knowing he is the very reason Binoche must stay behind, he asks to die, thereby freeing her to go pursue the new love, the new hope that exists for her life.

It's a great story surely, but to sit through this film can be a bit difficult if your attention span is short. If you don't like reading Shakespeare, you probably will fall asleep during this film.

The Informant! ***

Director: Steven Soderbergh

Year: 2009

Book by: Kurt Eichenwald

Adapted by: Scott Z. Burns

Cinematographer: Steven Soderbergh

A Streetcar Named Desire *****

Director: Elia Kazan
Year:1952
Play by: Tennessee Williams
Adapted by: Oscar Saul

Cinematographer: Harry Stradling

El callejón de los milagros ****

(Midaq Alley)

Director: Jorge Fons

Year: 1995

Book by: Naguib Mahfouz

Adapted by: Vicente Leñero

Cinematographer: Carlos Marcovich

My Blueberry Nights **

Director: Wong Kar Wai
Year: 2008

Writers: Wong Kar Wai, Lawrence Block

Cinematographer: Darius Khondji, Pung-Leung Kwan

Pretty to look at, great cinematography, but big problems with the story and acting.

Walk the Line ***

Director: James Mangold

Year: 2005

Book by: Johnny Cash

Adapted by: Gill Dennis, James Mangold

Cinematographer: Phedon Papamichael

Pirate Radio ****

(The Boat that Rocked)
Writer/Director: Richard Curtis
Year: 2009

Cinematographer: Danny Cohen

Really funny, good fun. Great music. Some really good deleted scenes on the DVD.

Los Olvidados ****

(The Forgotten Ones) (The Young and the Damned)
Director: Luis Buñuel
Year: 1950

Writers: Luis Buñuel, Luis Alcoriza

Cinematographer: Gabriel Figueroa

Nicotina *

Director: Hugo Rodríguez

Year: 2003

Writers: Martín Salinas

Cinematographer: Marcelo Laccarino

Couldn't complete this film because the production quality was so poor. It looks like a good university production, but not a serious film.

This film wants to be a cool, underworld of crime in Mexico City film. It wants to be gritty, but isn't. It gets bogged down by doing things we've seen before, and has nothing new to contribute. The production quality is low. It wants to be the mexican "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels" but just because it tries to be that, doesn't mean it is.

I suggest you rent "Matando Cabos" if you want to see a really fun mexican version of those Guy Ritchie films.

La Mala Educación ****

(Bad Education)
Writer/Director: Pedro Almodóvar

Year: 2004

Cinematographer: José Luis Alcaine

The Wrestler *****

Director: Darren Aronofsky

Year: 2008

Writer: Robert D. Siegel

Cinematographer: Maryse Alberti

About Schmidt ***

Director: Alexander Payne

Year: 2002

Book by: Louis Begley "About Schmidt"

Adapted by: Alexander Payne, Jim Taylor

Cinematographer: James Glennon

El Topo ????

Writer/Director: Alejandro Jodorowsky

Year: 1970

Cinematographer: Rafael Corkidi

Disc was severely scratched on the DVD I rented and therefore could not complete this psychedelic mexican western.

Last Chance Harvey **

Writer/Director: Joel Hopkins

Year: 2008

Cinematographer: John de Borman

I got sucker'd. I saw Emma Thompson and Dustin Hoffman, two spectacular actors on a DVD poster, with the plot sold to me as this... two old single people fall sweetly and improbably in love. I was in. I wanted to see these two actors fall in love, I thought it would be so charming...

I was hugely disappointed. The script is cliché after cliché, it gets lost in scenes that have nothing to do with the central plot (the wedding scene) and then Dustin Hoffman out of nowhere has a medical problem that was not set up earlier in the film, just so the film can have an excuse for the so common accidental stand-up date. Emma Thompson is then overly angry about it, and for no reason Hoffman is reluctant to explain why he couldn't show up... in the end he runs to go get her, and they ride off in a bus (Graduate anyone?) but not as well done. The stakes are never high, you know from the beginning they will end up together, and I never once felt that destiny being genuinely threatened.

Watch "The Graduate."